Validity and reliability of the Glittre-ADL test in adults with asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with asthma may have limitations in their activities of daily living (ADL) and among the most used tests to assess ADL, performance-based instruments such as the Glittre-Activities of Daily Living (Glittre-ADL) test are available. However, metric properties of this instrument have not yet been investigated in this population. OBJECTIVE: To verify the construct validity and reliability of the Glittre-ADL test in adults with asthma. METHODS: Fifty-eight adults with asthma had their ADL objectively assessed by Glittre-ADL test, which was performed twice by the same rater. Lung function (spirometry), functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk test, 6MWT), and quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ) were also assessed. RESULTS: Participants were 31% men; 43 ± 14 years; FEV1 74 ± 18% predicted. Performance in the Glittre-ADL test correlated with the 6MWT (r = -0.61; P < .0001) and had excellent intraclass correlation coefficient ICC3,1 = 0.95. Standard error of measurement was 23%, and the minimal detectable change was 29 seconds. Furthermore, the learning effect was 11 seconds (5.03%). CONCLUSION: The Glittre-ADL test is valid and reliable for assessing ADL in adults with asthma. However, considerable learning effect was observed and therefore the best of two measures can avoid underestimation.

Effects of lumbar stabilization and muscular stretching on pain, disabilities, postural control and muscle activation in pregnant woman with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is common during pregnancy. Lumbar stabilization and stretching exercises are recommended to treat low back pain in the general population. However, few studies have applied the effects of these two interventions in pregnant women with low back pain. AIM: To compare the effects of lumbar stabilization and stretching exercises for the treatment of gestational low back pain. DESIGN: A pilot randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Laboratory of Functional Evaluation and Human Motor Performance and physical therapy clinics. POPULATION: Initially, 30 pregnant women with low back pain were recruited, of which 24 met the following inclusion criteria: being between 19-29 weeks of gestation; being in prenatal clinical follow-up; having nonspecific mechanical low back pain started in pregnancy; not participating in specific low back pain treatment in the last 3 months. A total of 20 women completed the study (10 each group). METHODS: The main outcome measures were clinical (pain by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire and disability by Roland Morris Questionnaire), and secondary outcome measures were: postural balance (force platform); muscle activation level of multifidus, iliocostalis lumborum, rectus abdominis and external abdominal oblique (electromyography). The women were randomized into two groups for 6 weeks of intervention twice a week for a 50-minute treatment: 1) lumbar stabilization exercise protocol and 2) stretching exercise protocol. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction (P=0.03) in pain (1.68 in VAS and 4.81 for McGill questionnaire) for both interventions, but no change in disability score. In addition, both interventions were comparable for a significant improvement in postural stability (in mean d=0.77) for the velocity sway parameter, and significantly increased activation (P>0.05) of the external abdominal oblique muscle after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Both modalities (lumbar stabilization and stretching) were efficient for pain reduction, improving balance and increasing one trunk activity muscle after 6 weeks of intervention in pregnant women with low back pain. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The present study has implications, especially for clinical decision-making with regard to therapy choice in pregnant women with LBP to reduce pain and improve trunk function as measured through balance performance.