PDF herunterladen
manuelletherapie 2004; 8(2): 55-65
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813142
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Finger-Boden-Abstand und Schober-Test - Genügen diese Tests wissenschaftlichen Kriterien?

Fingertip floor distance and Schober test - Do these tests meet scientific standards?T. Horre
Ich danke meiner Tutorin Trisha Davies-Knorr für die perfekte Betreuung der Arbeit.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Manuskript eingetroffen: 7.4.2003

Manuskript akzeptiert: 18.5.2003

Publikationsdatum:
19. Mai 2004 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In der Physiotherapie und Manuellen Therapie werden zunehmend Tests gefordert, die wissenschaftlichen Kriterien genügen. Der Finger-Boden-Abstand und der Schober-Test sind einfach durchzuführende Tests mit guter Reliabilität, anhand derer sich die Ergebnisse dokumentieren lassen und zu mehr Evidence-based Practise beitragen.

Der Schober-Test misst selektiv die Bewegung der lumbalen Wirbelsäule. Genaue Daten für die lumbale Flexion liefert ein Goniometer, das ebenfalls gute Werte für die Reliabilität und die Validität aufweist.

Abstract

In Physiotherapy and Manual therapy tests which meet scientific standards are increasingly required. Finger floor distance and Schober test are easily performed tests with high reliablitiy which can be used to document results an which can therefore contribute to more evidence based practice.

The Schober test selectively measures the movement of the lumbar vertebral column. A goniometer delivers exact lumbar flexion data and also shows high reliability and validity.

Schlüsselwörter

Reliabilität - Validität - Finger-Boden-Abstand - Schober-Test - Sit-and-reach-Test - Inklinometertechnik

Key words

Reliability - validity - finger floor distance - Schober test - sit and reach test - inclinometer technique

Literatur

  • 1 Bogduk N. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum. 3rd ed New York; Churchill Livingstone 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Cabri J. Testverfahren am Bewegungsapparat. In: van den Berg F Angewandte Physiologie Bd. 3 Stuttgart; Thieme 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chung P K, Yuen C K. Criterion-Related Validitiy of Sit-and-reach Tests in University Men in Hong Kong.  Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1999;  88 304-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Davies-Knorr T. Editorial.  Manuelle Therapie. 2002;  1 1-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 de Bie R. Einzelfallstudien.  Manuelle Therapie. 1999;  1 8-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dillard J, Trafimow J, Andersson G B. et al . Motion of the lumbar spine. Reliability of two measurement techniques.  Spine. 1991;  39 321-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dopf C A, Mandel S S, Geiger D F. et al . Analysis of spine motion variability using a computerized goniometer compared to physical examination.  Spine. 1994;  5 586-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ensink F B, Saur P M, Frese K. et al . Lumbar range of motion: Influence of time of day and individual factors on measurements.  Spine. 1996;  11 1339-1343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Esola M A, McClure P W, Fitzgerald G K. et al . Analysis of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain.  Spine. 1996;  1 71-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fransen J, de Bruin E D. Evidence Based Medicine in der Manuellen Therapie.  Manuelle Therapie. 2000;  3 95-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Frost M, Stuckley S, Smalley L A. et al . Reliability of measurement trunk motions in centimeters.  Phys Ther. 1982;  62 1431-1437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gauvin M G, Riddle D L, Rothstein J M. Reliability of clinical measurements of forward bending using the modified fingertip-to-floor method.  Physical Therapy. 1990;  7 443-447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hyytiaenen K, Salminen J J, Suvitie T. et al . Reproducibility of nine tests to measure spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength.  Scand J Rehab Med. 1991;  23 3-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jackson A W, Morrow J R, Brill P A. et al . Relations of Sit-up and Sit-and reach Tests to Low Back Pain in Adults.  JOSPT. 1998;  1 22-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jones C J, Rikli R E, Max J. et al . The Reliability and Validity of a Chair Sit-and-reach Test as a Measure of Hamstring Flexibility in Older Adults.  RQES. 1998;  4 338-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kelemen J, Eichhorn M, Ovenhazsen K. et al . Reliabiltäts- u. Validitätsstudien mit dem Triflexometer, einer neuen Methode zur Bestimmung von Form und Beweglichkeit der Wirbelsäule.  Rehabilitation. 1998;  37 78-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kippers V, Parker A W. Toe-touch test. A measure of its validity.  Physical Therapy. 1987;  11 1680-1684
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kool J, Pescioli A. Clinical Reasoning: Die Qualität diagnostischer Tests.  Manuelle Therapie. 1997;  1 11-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kool J, de Bie R. Der Weg zum wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten. Stuttgart; Thieme 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Korpi J, Poussa M, Helioevaara M. Radiographic mobility of the lumbar spine and its relation to clinical back motion.  Scand J Rehab Med. 1988;  20 71-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lüdtke K. Qualitätskontrolle durch Evidence based Practice.  Krankengymnastik. 2000;  8 1325-1328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Luomajoki H. Evidence für Übungen und Training bei lumbalem Rückenschmerz.  Manuelle Therapie. 2001;  1 33-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maffey-Ward L, Jull G, Wellington L. Toward a clinical test of lumbar spine kinesthesia.  JOSPT. 1996;  6 354-358
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Maher C, Latimer J, Refshauge K. Atlas of clinical tests and measures for low back pain. ISBN 0 959 583 866 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Maitland G D. Manipulation der Wirbelsäule. Berlin; Springer 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Mayer R S, Chen I H, Lavender S A. et al . Variance in the measurement of sagital lumbar spine range of motion among examiners, subjects and instruments.  Spine. 1995;  13 1489-1493
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mayer T G, Kondraske G, Beals S B. et al . Spinal range of motion. Accuracy and sources of error with incliniometric measurement.  Spine. 1997;  17 1976-1984
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Merritt J L, McLean T J, Erickson R P. et al . Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: Reproducibility of three clinical methods.  Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;  61 192-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Miller S A, Mayer T, Cox R. et al . Reliability problems associated with the modified Schober technique for true lumbar flexion measurement.  Spine. 1992;  3 345-348
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Moore A, Petty N. Evidence-based practice - getting a grip and finding a balance.  Manual Therapy. 2001;  4 195-196
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Murtagh J. Schober’s test (modified).  Australian family physican. 1989;  18 849
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Newton M, Waddell G. Reliability and validity of clinical measurement of the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain.  Physiotherapy. 1991;  77 796-800
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 O’Haire C, Gibbons P. Inter-examiner and intra-examiner agreement for assessing sacroiliacanatomical landmarks using palpation and observation: Pilot study.  Manual Therapy. 2000;  1 13-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Perret C, Poiraudeau S, Vermanian J. et al . Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness of the Fingertip-to-Floor Test.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;  82 1566-1570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Pile K D, Laurent M R, Salmomd C E. et al . Clinical assessement of ankylosing spondylitis: A study of observer variation in spinal measurements.  British J of Rheumatology. 1991;  30 29-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rainville J, Sobel J B, Hartigan C. Comparison of total lumbosacral flexion measured by a dual inclinometer technique.  Spine. 1994;  23 2698-2701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sackett D L, Rosenberg W MC, Muir-Gray J A. et al . Was ist evidenzbasierte Medizin und was nicht?.  Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1997;  44 644-645
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sahrmann S. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes,. London; Mosby 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Saur P M, Ensink F B, Frese K. et al . Lumbar range of motion: Reliability and validity of the inclinometer technique in the clinical measurement of trunk flexibility.  Spine. 1996;  11 1332-1338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Saur P M, Pfingsten M, Ensink F B. et al . Interrater-Untersuchungen zur Reliabilitätsprüfung somatischer Befunde.  Rehabilitation. 1996;  35 150-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Scherfer E. Evidenzbasierte Praxis in der Physiotherapie - Bedrohung oder Chance?.  Krankengymnastik. 2001;  6 945-958
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Scherfer E. Was ist eigentlich eine randomisierte kontrollierte Studie?.  Krankengymnastik. 2003;  2 242-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Schewe H. Physiotherapie in 14 Bänden. Bd. 3 Stuttgart; Thieme 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Schober P. Lendenwirbelsäule und Kreuzschmerzen.  Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1937;  9 336-338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Scholten-Peeters G GM, van der Stehen C WM, de Visser A C. et al . Ist das Gesundheitsprofil von Patienten mit Whiplash (Schleudertrauma) für den Manualtherapeuten geeignet?.  Manuelle Therapie. 2002;  1 5-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schomacher J. Systematische und dokumentierte Arbeitsweise in der Manuellen Therapie.  Manuelle Therapie. 1998;  2 95-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schomacher J. Im Anfang war die Tat.  Manuelle Therapie. 2000;  3 93-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schreiber T U, Anders C, Uhlemann C. et al .Mobility of lumbar spine recorded by three-dimensional motion analysis in patients with low back pain and controls: Third Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back & Pelvic Pain. Wien, 1999. 
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Staubesand J. Benninghoff - Anatomie. Bd. 1. 14. Aufl München; Urban & Schwarzenberg 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Sullivan M S, Shoaf L D, Riddle D L. The relationship of lumbar flexion to disability in patients with low back pain.  Physical Therapy. 2000;  3 240-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy .Outcome measures. Information Paper PA 49. London, 2001. 
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Thomas E, Silman A J, Papageorgiou A C. et al . Association between measures of spinal mobility and low back pain.  Spine. 1998;  3 343-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Troke M, Moore A P. The development of a new form of instrument fixation for the OSI CA 6000 spine motion analyzer.  Manual Therapy. 1995;  1 43-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Troke M, Moore A P, Cheek E. Intra-operator and inter-operator reliabilty of the OSI CA 6000 spine motion analyzer with a new skin fixation system.  Manual Therapy. 1996;  2 92-98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Waddell G. et al . Objective Clinical Evaluation of Physical Impairment in Chronic Low Back Pain.  Spine. 1992;  17(6) 617-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Westerhuis P. Persönlicher Kommentar. Mai 2002. 
    Google Scholar
  • 57 World Health Organisation (WHO) .International Classification of Functioning and Disability. Beta-2 draft. Geneva; WHO 2001
    Google Scholar

Thomas Horre

Wilhelmstraße 7

49078 Osnabrück

eMail: T.Horre@gmx.de

URL: http://www.t-horre.de

      >