Dataset Information

A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of orthopedic physical examination tests of the hip.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous reviews of the diagnostic performances of physical tests of the hip in orthopedics have drawn limited conclusions because of the low to moderate quality of primary studies published in the literature. This systematic review aims to build on these reviews by assessing a broad range of hip pathologies, and employing a more selective approach to the inclusion of studies in order to accurately gauge diagnostic performance for the purposes of making recommendations for clinical practice and future research. It specifically identifies tests which demonstrate strong and moderate diagnostic performance.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Embase Classic and CINAHL was conducted to identify studies of hip tests. Our selection criteria included an analysis of internal and external validity. We reported diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Likelihood ratios were used to identify tests with strong and moderate diagnostic utility.

Results

Only a small proportion of tests reported in the literature have been assessed in methodologically valid primary studies. 16 studies were included in our review, producing 56 independent test-pathology combinations. Two tests demonstrated strong clinical utility, the patellar-pubic percussion test for excluding radiologically occult hip fractures (negative LR 0.05, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.03-0.08) and the hip abduction sign for diagnosing sarcoglycanopathies in patients with known muscular dystrophies (positive LR 34.29, 95% CI 10.97-122.30). Fifteen tests demonstrated moderate diagnostic utility for diagnosing and/or excluding hip fractures, symptomatic osteoarthritis and loosening of components post-total hip arthroplasty.

Conclusions

We have identified a number of tests demonstrating strong and moderate diagnostic performance. These findings must be viewed with caution as there are concerns over the methodological quality of the primary studies from which we have extracted our data. Future studies should recruit larger, representative populations and allow for the construction of complete 2×2 contingency tables.

SUBMITTER: Rahman LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3766647 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of orthopedic physical examination tests of the hip.

Rahman Labib Ataur LA Adie Sam S Naylor Justine Maree JM Mittal Rajat R So Sarah S Harris Ian Andrew IA

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20130830

<h4>Background</h4>Previous reviews of the diagnostic performances of physical tests of the hip in orthopedics have drawn limited conclusions because of the low to moderate quality of primary studies published in the literature. This systematic review aims to build on these reviews by assessing a broad range of hip pathologies, and employing a more selective approach to the inclusion of studies in order to accurately gauge diagnostic performance for the purposes of making recommendations for cli ...[more]

PMID: 23987589

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo overcome the limitations of conventional malaria rapid diagnostic tests (cRDTs) in diagnosing malaria in patients with low parasitaemia, ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic tests (uRDTs) have recently been developed, with promising results under laboratory conditions. The current study is the first meta-analysis comparing the overall sensitivity, and specificity of newly developed ultrasensitive Plasmodium falciparum malaria RDT (Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT) with the cRDT conducted in the same field conditions.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane infectious diseases group specialized register, and African Journals Online (AJOL) were searched up to 20th April 2021. Studies with enough data to compute sensitivity and specificity of uRDT and cRDT were retrieved. A random-effect model for meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled sensitivity and specificity.ResultsOverall, 15 data sets from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of the Alere™ ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 55.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.5; 65.0), while the sensitivity regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 42.9% (95% CI: 31.5; 55.2) for the cRDT performed in the same field conditions. When PCR was used as reference test, the sensitivity of uRDT was 60.4% (95% CI: 50.8; 69.2), while the sensitivity was 49.4% (95% CI: 38.2; 60.6) for the cRDT. The pooled specificity of uRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.1; 99.4), and the pooled specificity of cRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 99.3% (95% CI: 98.1; 99.7). When PCR was used as reference test the specificity of uRDT and cRDT was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1; 98.9) and 98.2% (95% CI: 95.5; 99.3). Regardless of the reference test used, the sensitivity of Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT in symptomatic patients was 72.1% (95%CI: 67.4; 76.4), while sensitivity of cRDT was 67.4% (95%CI: 57.6; 75.9).ConclusionFindings of the meta-analysis show that Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT compared to cRDT performed in the same field conditions has higher sensitivity but lower specificity although the difference is not statistically significant.

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful malaria treatment, control and elimination programs require accurate, affordable, and field-deployable diagnostic tests. A number of studies have directly compared diagnostic performance between the new ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (us-RDT) and conventional rapid diagnostic test (co-RDT) for detecting malaria. Thus, we undertook this review to directly compare pooled diagnostic performance of us-RDT and co-RDT for detection of malaria.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest were searched from their inception until 31 January 2021 accompanied by forward and backward citations tracking. Two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies by RevMan5 software (using the QUADAS-2 checklist). Diagnostic accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity and others) were pooled using a random-effect model and 95% confidence interval (CI) in Stata 15 software.ResultsFifteen studies with a total of 20,236 paired co-RDT and us-RDT tests were included in the meta-analysis. Molecular methods (15 studies) and immunoassay test (one study) were used as standard methods for comparison with co-RDT and us-RDT tests. The pooled sensitivity for co-RDT and us-RDT were 42% (95%CI: 25-62%) and 61% (95%CI: 47-73%), respectively, with specificity of 99% (95%CI: 98-100%) for co-RDT, and 99% (95%CI: 96-99%) for us-RDT. In asymptomatic individuals, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of co-RDT were 27% (95%CI: 8-58%) and 100% (95%CI: 97-100%), respectively, while us-RDT had a sensitivity of 50% (95%CI: 33-68%) and specificity of 98% (95%CI: 94-100%). In low transmission settings, pooled sensitivity for co-RDT was 36% (95%CI: 9 76%) and 62% (95%CI: 44 77%) for us RDT, while in high transmission areas, pooled sensitivity for co RDT and us RDT were 62% (95%CI: 39 80%) and 75% (95%CI: 57-87%), respectively.ConclusionThe us-RDT test showed better performance than co-RDT test, and this characteristic is more evident in asymptomatic individuals and low transmission areas; nonetheless, additional studies integrating a range of climate, geography, and demographics are needed to reliably understand the potential of the us-RDT.

Project description:ImportanceHip osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and disability.ObjectiveTo identify the clinical findings that are most strongly associated with hip OA.Data sourcesSystematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception until November 2019.Study selectionIncluded studies (1) quantified the accuracy of clinical findings (history, physical examination, or simple tests) and (2) used plain radiographs as the reference standard for diagnosing hip OA.Data extraction and synthesisStudies were assigned levels of evidence using the Rational Clinical Examination scale and assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Data were extracted using individual hips as the unit of analysis and only pooled when findings were reported in 3 or more studies.Main outcomes and measuresSensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs).ResultsSix studies were included, with data from 1110 patients and 1324 hips, of which 509 (38%) showed radiographic evidence of OA. Among patients presenting to primary care physicians with hip or groin pain, the affected hip showed radiographic evidence of OA in 34% of cases. A family history of OA, personal history of knee OA, or pain on climbing stairs or walking up slopes all had LRs of 2.1 (sensitivity range, 33%-68%; specificity range, 68%-84%; broadest LR range: 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). To identify patients most likely to have OA, the most useful findings were squat causing posterior pain (sensitivity, 24%; specificity, 96%; LR, 6.1 [95% CI, 1.3-29]), groin pain on passive abduction or adduction (sensitivity, 33%; specificity, 94%; LR, 5.7 [95% CI, 1.6-20]), abductor weakness (sensitivity, 44%; specificity, 90%; LR, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.4-8.4]), and decreased passive hip adduction (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 81%; LR, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.0-6.0]) or internal rotation (sensitivity, 66%; specificity, 79%; LR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.7-6.0]) as measured by a goniometer or compared with the contralateral leg. The presence of normal passive hip adduction was most useful for suggesting the absence of OA (negative LR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.54]).Conclusions and relevanceSimple tests of hip motion and observing for pain during that motion were helpful in distinguishing patients most likely to have OA on plain radiography from those who will not. A combination of findings efficiently detects those most likely to have severe hip OA.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent clinical guidelines recommend selecting diagnostic tests for giant cell arteritis (GCA) based on pretest probability that the disease is present, but how pretest probability should be estimated remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, physical signs, and laboratory tests for suspected GCA.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 1940 through April 5, 2020.Study selectionTrials and observational studies describing patients with suspected GCA, using an appropriate reference standard for GCA (temporal artery biopsy, imaging test, or clinical diagnosis), and with available data for at least 1 symptom, physical sign, or laboratory test.Data extraction and synthesisScreening, full text review, quality assessment, and data extraction by 2 investigators. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used a bivariate model.Main outcome(s) and measuresDiagnostic accuracy parameters, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs).ResultsIn 68 unique studies (14 037 unique patients with suspected GCA; of 7798 patients with sex reported, 5193 were women [66.6%]), findings associated with a diagnosis of GCA included limb claudication (positive LR, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.38-26.16), jaw claudication (positive LR, 4.90; 95% CI, 3.74-6.41), temporal artery thickening (positive LR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.65-8.33), temporal artery loss of pulse (positive LR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.49-4.23), platelet count of greater than 400 × 103/μL (positive LR, 3.75; 95% CI, 2.12-6.64), temporal tenderness (positive LR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.14-8.65), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 100 mm/h (positive LR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-6.78). Findings that were associated with absence of GCA included the absence of erythrocyte sedimentation rate of greater than 40 mm/h (negative LR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.44), absence of C-reactive protein level of 2.5 mg/dL or more (negative LR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59), and absence of age over 70 years (negative LR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study identifies the clinical and laboratory features that are most informative for a diagnosis of GCA, although no single feature was strong enough to confirm or refute the diagnosis if taken alone. Combinations of these symptoms might help direct further investigation, such as vascular imaging, temporal artery biopsy, or seeking evaluation for alternative diagnoses.

Project description:BackgroundPelvic fractures are common among blunt trauma patients, and timely and accurate diagnosis can improve patient outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether physical examinations are sufficient in this context. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of physical examination for pelvic fracture among blunt trauma patients.MethodsStudies were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases starting from the creation of the database to January 2020. A total of 20 studies (49,043 patients with 8300 cases [16.9%] of pelvic fracture) were included in the quality assessment and meta-analysis. Two investigators extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias in each study. The meta-analysis involved a hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (ROC) model to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the physical exam. Subgroup analysis assessed the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis.ResultsThe median prevalence of pelvic fracture was 10.5% (interquartile range, 5.1-16.5). The pooled sensitivity (and corresponding 95% confidence interval) of the hierarchical summary ROC parameters was 0.859 (0.761-0.952) at a given specificity of 0.920, which was the median value among the included studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity among patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 13 was 0.933 (0.847-0.998) at a given specificity of 0.920. The corresponding value for patients with scores ≤ 13 was 0.761 (0.560-0.932). For threshold probability < 0.01 with 10-15% prevalence, the net benefit of imaging tests was higher than that of physical examination.ConclusionImaging tests should be performed in all trauma patients regardless of findings from physical examination or patients' levels of consciousness. However, the clinical role of physical examination should be considered given the prevalence and threshold probability in each setting.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of orthopedic physical examination tests of the hip.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of orthopedic physical examination tests of the hip.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets