Dataset Information

Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Musculoskeletal physiotherapists routinely assess lumbar segmental motion during the clinical examination of a patient with low back pain. The validity of manual assessment of segmental motion has not, however, been adequately investigated.

Methods

In this prospective, multi-centre, pragmatic, diagnostic validity study, 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (R/CLBP) were recruited. Physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy performed passive accessory intervertebral motion tests (PAIVMs) and passive physiological intervertebral motion tests (PPIVMs). Consenting patients were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from these radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. Motion beyond two standard deviations from the reference mean was considered diagnostic of rotational lumbar segmental instability (LSI) and translational LSI. Accuracy and validity of the clinical assessments were expressed using sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Only translation LSI was found to be significantly associated with R/CLBP (p < 0.05). PAIVMs were specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 89%, CI 83-93%), but showed poor sensitivity (29%, CI 14-50%). A positive test results in a likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.52 (95% CI 1.15-5.53). Flexion PPIVMs were highly specific for the diagnosis of translation LSI (specificity 99.5%; CI 97-100%), but showed very poor sensitivity (5%; CI 1-22%). Likelihood ratio statistics for flexion PPIVMs were not statistically significant. Extension PPIVMs performed better than flexion PPIVMs, with slightly higher sensitivity (16%; CI 6-38%) resulting in a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 7.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 29.2) for translation LSI.

Conclusion

This study provides the first evidence reporting the concurrent validity of manual tests for the detection of abnormal sagittal planar motion. PAIVMs and PPIVMs are highly specific, but not sensitive, for the detection of translation LSI. Likelihood ratios resulting from positive test results were only moderate. This research indicates that manual clinical examination procedures have moderate validity for detecting segmental motion abnormality.

SUBMITTER: Abbott JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1310529 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment.

Abbott J Haxby JH McCane Brendan B Herbison Peter P Moginie Graeme G Chapple Cathy C Hogarty Tracy T

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20051107

<h4>Background</h4>Musculoskeletal physiotherapists routinely assess lumbar segmental motion during the clinical examination of a patient with low back pain. The validity of manual assessment of segmental motion has not, however, been adequately investigated.<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective, multi-centre, pragmatic, diagnostic validity study, 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (R/CLBP) were recruited. Physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy ...[more]

PMID: 16274487

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is an in situ method of gathering self-report on behaviors using mobile devices. In typical phone-based EMAs, participants are prompted repeatedly with multiple-choice questions, often causing participation burden. Alternatively, microinteraction EMA (micro-EMA or μEMA) is a type of EMA where all the self-report prompts are single-question surveys that can be answered using a 1-tap glanceable microinteraction conveniently on a smartwatch. Prior work suggests that μEMA may permit a substantially higher prompting rate than EMA, yielding higher response rates and lower participation burden. This is achieved by ensuring μEMA prompt questions are quick and cognitively simple to answer. However, the validity of participant responses from μEMA self-report has not yet been formally assessed.ObjectiveIn this pilot study, we explored the criterion validity of μEMA self-report on a smartwatch, using physical activity (PA) assessment as an example behavior of interest.MethodsA total of 17 participants answered 72 μEMA prompts each day for 1 week using a custom-built μEMA smartwatch app. At each prompt, they self-reported whether they were doing sedentary, light/standing, moderate/walking, or vigorous activities by tapping on the smartwatch screen. Responses were compared with a research-grade activity monitor worn on the dominant ankle simultaneously (and continuously) measuring PA.ResultsParticipants had an 87.01% (5226/6006) μEMA completion rate and a 74.00% (5226/7062) compliance rate taking an average of only 5.4 (SD 1.5) seconds to answer a prompt. When comparing μEMA responses with the activity monitor, we observed significantly higher (P<.001) momentary PA levels on the activity monitor when participants self-reported engaging in moderate+vigorous activities compared with sedentary or light/standing activities. The same comparison did not yield any significant differences in momentary PA levels as recorded by the activity monitor when the μEMA responses were randomly generated (ie, simulating careless taps on the smartwatch).ConclusionsFor PA measurement, high-frequency μEMA self-report could be used to capture information that appears consistent with that of a research-grade continuous sensor for sedentary, light, and moderate+vigorous activity, suggesting criterion validity. The preliminary results show that participants were not carelessly answering μEMA prompts by randomly tapping on the smartwatch but were reporting their true behavior at that moment. However, more research is needed to examine the criterion validity of μEMA when measuring vigorous activities.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers frequently engage patients in conversations about health behavior change and are encouraged to use patient-centered approaches, such as Motivational Interviewing. Training in and sustainment of these skills are known to require feedback based on actual or role-played patient encounters. The behavior change counseling index (BECCI) is a pragmatic measure to assess healthcare providers' patient-centered behavior change counseling skills that was developed as an alternative to resource-intensive "gold standard" measures, which are difficult to use in routine practice. We are not aware of any studies that examine the criterion-related validity of this measure using an alternative gold standard measure. We examined the criterion-related validity of the BECCI as rated by a simulated patient actor immediately after a brief behavior change intervention role-play using objective ratings on the motivational interviewing treatment integrity (MITI) scale.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from a 25-site clinical trial of screening and intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbidities with patients at level I trauma centers in the USA. Participants were 64 providers representing diverse professional roles trained to deliver a multi-component intervention with study patients. As part of the training, providers role-played counseling a patient to reduce risky alcohol use with a simulated patient actor. These 20-min role-plays were conducted by telephone and audio recorded. Immediately after the role-play, the simulated patient actor rated the quality of the providers' patient-centered behavior change counseling skills using the BECCI. A third-party expert MITI rater later listened to the audio recordings of the role-plays and rated the quality of the providers' patient-centered behavior change counseling skills using the MITI 3.1.1.ResultsAll correlations observed were statistically significant. The overall BECCI score correlated strongly (≥ 0.50) with five of the six MITI scores and moderately (0.33) with MITI percent complex reflections.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of criterion-related validity of the BECCI with a sample of healthcare providers representing a range of professional roles. Simulated patient actor rating using the BECCI is a pragmatic approach to assessing the quality of brief behavior change interventions delivered by healthcare providers.

Dataset Information

Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets