Dataset Information

Protocol for determining the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for shoulder pathology.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Shoulder complaints are the third most common musculoskeletal problem in the general population. There are an abundance of physical examination maneuvers for diagnosing shoulder pathology. The validity of these maneuvers has not been adequately addressed. We propose a large Phase III study to investigate the accuracy of these tests in an orthopaedic setting. METHODS: We will recruit consecutive new shoulder patients who are referred to two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. We will select which physical examination tests to include using a modified Delphi process. The physician will take a thorough history from the patient and indicate their certainty about each possible diagnosis (certain the diagnosis is absent, present or requires further testing). The clinician will only perform the physical examination maneuvers for diagnoses where uncertainty remains. We will consider arthroscopy the reference standard for patients who undergo surgery within 8 months of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with arthrogram for patients who do not. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios and investigate whether combinations of the top tests provide stronger predictions of the presence or absence of disease. DISCUSSION: There are several considerations when performing a diagnostic study to ensure that the results are applicable in a clinical setting. These include, 1) including a representative sample, 2) selecting an appropriate reference standard, 3) avoiding verification bias, 4) blinding the interpreters of the physical examination tests to the interpretation of the gold standard and, 5) blinding the interpreters of the gold standard to the interpretation of the physical examination tests. The results of this study will inform clinicians of which tests, or combination of tests, successfully reduce diagnostic uncertainty, which tests are misleading and how physical examination may affect the magnitude of the confidence the clinician feels about their diagnosis. The results of this study may reduce the number of costly and invasive imaging studies (MRI, CT or arthrography) that are requisitioned when uncertainty about diagnosis remains following history and physical exam. We also hope to reduce the variability between specialists in which maneuvers are used during physical examination and how they are used, all of which will assist in improving consistency of care between centres.

SUBMITTER: Somerville L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3579687 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for determining the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for shoulder pathology.

Somerville Lyndsay L Bryant Dianne D Willits Kevin K Johnson Andrew A

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20130208

<h4>Background</h4>Shoulder complaints are the third most common musculoskeletal problem in the general population. There are an abundance of physical examination maneuvers for diagnosing shoulder pathology. The validity of these maneuvers has not been adequately addressed. We propose a large Phase III study to investigate the accuracy of these tests in an orthopaedic setting.<h4>Methods</h4>We will recruit consecutive new shoulder patients who are referred to two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. W ...[more]

PMID: 23394210

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe physical examination is one of the cornerstones of the diagnostic process in patients with acute shoulder injuries. The discriminative properties of a given examination test depend both on its validity and reliability. The aim of the present study was to assess the interrater reliability of 13 physical examination manoeuvres for acute rotator cuff tears in patients with acute soft tissue shoulder injuries.MethodsIn a large walk-in orthopaedic emergency department, 120 consecutive patients ≥40 years of age were included in a diagnostic study. Patients who had follow-up within three weeks of an acute shoulder injury without fracture on radiographs were eligible. Four emergency department physicians participated as examiners. In a subset of 48 patients, the physical examination tests were performed by two physicians, randomly chosen by their work rotation. The physicians were blinded to the findings of each other and the results of the ultrasound screening. The interrater reliability was assessed by Cohen's kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Bland-Altman plots depending on whether the examination test result was registered as a binary, ordered categorical or continuous numerical variable.ResultsThe median age was 55.5 years, 46% were female. Twenty-seven percent had a rotator cuff full-thickness tear on ultrasound screening; all but one involved the supraspinatus tendon. Cohen's kappa for binary tests ranged from excellent to fair. Excellent agreement (kappa > 0.8) was found for the inability to abduct above 90° and abduction strength. External rotation strength expressed substantial agreement (kappa 0.7). The lowest scores were registered for Hawkins` test and the external rotation lag sign (kappa 0.25 and 0.40, respectively). The ICCs for active range of abduction and external rotation were 0.93 (0.88-0.96) and 0.84 (0.72-0.91), whereas the SEM was 15 and 9, respectively.ConclusionsThe results indicate that examination manoeuvres assessing abduction and external rotation range of motion and strength are more reliable than manoeuvres assessing pain in patients in the acute phase of traumatic shoulder injury. The poor agreement observed is likely to limit the validity in the present setting of two commonly used tests.Trial registrationThe Norwegian Regional Ethics Committee South East ( 2015/195 ).

Project description:BackgroundClinical laxity tests are commonly used together to identify individuals with multidirectional instability (MDI). However, their biomechanical validity in distinguishing distinct biomechanical characteristics consistent with MDI has not been demonstrated.ObjectiveTo determine if differences in glenohumeral (GH) joint laxity exist between individuals diagnosed with multidirectional instability (MDI) and asymptomatic matched controls without MDI.MethodsEighteen participants (9 swimmers with MDI, 9 non-swimming asymptomatic matched controls without MDI) participated in this observational study. Participants were classified as having MDI with a composite laxity score from three laxity tests (anterior/posterior drawer and sulcus tests). Single plane dynamic fluoroscopy captured joint motion with 2D-3D joint registration to derive 3D joint kinematics. Average GH translations occurring during the laxity tests were compared between groups using an independent sample's t-test. The relationship of composite laxity scores to overall translations was examined with a simple linear regression. Differences of each laxity test translation between groups were analyzed with a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsMean composite translations for swimmers were 1.7 mm greater (p = 0.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.1, 3.3 mm) compared to controls. A moderate association occurred (r2 = 0.40, p = 0.005) between composite laxity scores and composite translation. Greater translations for the posterior drawer (-2.4 mm, p = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.1, -4.6) and sulcus tests (-2.7 mm, p = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.3, -5.0) existed in swimmers compared to controls.ConclusionSignificant differences in composite translation existed between symptomatic swimmers with MDI and asymptomatic control participants without MDI during GH joint laxity tests. The results provide initial biomechanically based construct validity for the clinical criteria used to identify individuals with MDI.

Project description:IntroductionVertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP's diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders ('How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?') has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap.Methods and analysisWe will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière's disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition.Ethics and disseminationThe study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817-NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN97250704.

Project description:IntroductionClinicians rely on certain physical examination tests to diagnose and potentially grade ankle sprains and ankle instability. Diagnostic error and inaccurate prognosis may have important repercussions for clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. Therefore, it is important to recognize the diagnostic value of orthopaedic tests through understanding the reliability and validity of these tests.ObjectiveTo systematically review and report evidence on the reliability and validity of orthopaedic tests for the diagnosis of ankle sprains and instability.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2021. In addition, the reference list of included studies, located systematic reviews, and orthopaedic textbooks were searched. All articles reporting reliability or validity of physical examination or orthopaedic tests to diagnose ankle instability or sprains were included. Methodological quality of the reliability and the validity studies was assessed with The Quality Appraisal for Reliability studies checklist and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 respectively. We identified the number of times the orthopaedic test was investigated and the validity and/or reliability of each test.ResultsOverall, sixteen studies were included. Three studies assessed reliability, eight assessed validity, and five evaluated both. Overall, fifteen tests were evaluated, none demonstrated robust reliability and validity scores. The anterolateral talar palpation test reported the highest diagnostic accuracy. Further, the anterior drawer test, the anterolateral talar palpation, the reverse anterior lateral drawer test, and palpation of the anterior talofibular ligament reported the highest sensitivity. The highest specificity was attributed to the anterior drawer test, the anterolateral drawer test, the reverse anterior lateral drawer test, tenderness on palpation of the proximal fibular, and the squeeze test.ConclusionOverall, the diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and validity of physical examination tests for the assessment of ankle instability were limited. Physical examination tests should not be used in isolation, but rather in combination with the clinical history to diagnose an ankle sprain. Preliminary evidence suggests that the overall validity of physical examination for the ankle may be better if conducted five days after the injury rather than within 48 h of injury.

Project description:BackgroundDespite numerous methodological flaws in previous study designs and the lack of validation in primary care populations, clinical tests for identifying acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pain are widely utilised without concern for such issues. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of traditional ACJ tests and to compare their accuracy with other clinical examination features for identifying a predominant ACJ pain source in a primary care cohort.MethodsConsecutive patients with shoulder pain were recruited prospectively from primary health care clinics. Following a standardised clinical examination and diagnostic injection into the subacromial bursa, all participants received a fluoroscopically guided diagnostic block of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (XylocaineTM) into the ACJ. Diagnostic accuracy statistics including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for traditional ACJ tests (Active Compression/O'Brien's test, cross-body adduction, localised ACJ tenderness and Hawkins-Kennedy test), and for individual and combinations of clinical examination variables that were associated with a positive anaesthetic response (PAR) (P?0.05) defined as 80% or more reduction in post-injection pain intensity during provocative clinical tests.ResultsTwenty two of 153 participants (14%) reported an 80% PAR. None of the traditional ACJ tests were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and combinations of traditional tests were not able to discriminate between a PAR and a negative anaesthetic response (AUC 0.507; 95% CI: 0.366, 0.647; P>0.05). Five clinical examination variables (repetitive mechanism of pain onset, no referred pain below the elbow, thickened or swollen ACJ, no symptom provocation during passive glenohumeral abduction and external rotation) were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and demonstrated an ability to accurately discriminate between an PAR and NAR (AUC 0.791; 95% CI 0.702, 0.880; P<0.001). Less than two positive clinical features resulted in 96% sensitivity (95% CI 0.78, 0.99) and a LR- 0.09 (95% CI 0.02, 0.41) and four positive clinical features resulted in 95% specificity (95% CI 0.90, 0.98) and a LR+ of 4.98 (95% CI 1.69, 13.84).ConclusionsIn this cohort of primary care patients with predominantly subacute or chronic ACJ pain of non-traumatic onset, traditional ACJ tests were of limited diagnostic value. Combinations of other history and physical examination findings were able to more accurately identify injection-confirmed ACJ pain in this cohort.

Dataset Information

Protocol for determining the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for shoulder pathology.

Publications

Protocol for determining the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for shoulder pathology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets