Publication

Abstract : Purpose The primary objective was to evolve comprehensive clinical tests for measuring back muscles’ endurance and obtain their baseline data. The secondary objective was to determine the reliability of these tests and compare them with the standard Sorenson’s test. Methods This cross-sectional study comprised 50 healthy volunteers who were subjected to perform four endurance exercises including Sorenson’s test and three other predefined test exercises of inclined spot jogging, inclined trunk push-up and pelvic bridging. Average endurance value, maximum heart rate (HRmax), maximum aerobic capacity (VO2max) and level of ease of performance score (1–10) were calculated for each clinical test. The set of four exercises was repeated after one week and reliability was determined using test–retest correlation. The proposed test designs were compared to the Sorenson’s test in terms of VO2max and level of ease and p values were calculated. Results The baseline mean endurance values (in seconds) were: Sorenson’s test—155.96, inclined spot jogging—110.52, inclined push-up—88.84 and pelvic bridging test—170.36. The Sorenson’s test had lower median HRmax (104), VO2 max (19.52) and level of ease score (6) as compared to inclined spot jogging (HRmax—138; VO2max—24.94; level of ease score—7), inclined push-up (HRmax—132; VO2max—23.72; level of ease score—8) and pelvic bridging (HRmax—128; VO2max—22.68; level of ease score—8) tests. The differences of VO2max and level of ease scores of our proposed tests were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.001) against the Sorenson’s test. The test–retest correlation for the Sorenson’s test was moderately significant while very strong correlation was found for all the other three tests. Conclusion Sorenson’s test demonstrated low test–retest correlation, least effect on the cardio-vascular status and was most cumbersome to perform. The proposed dynamic endurance tests are more reliable, involve the cardio-vascular system more and are easier to perform.