Dataset Information

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

ABSTRACT: To date, no research has examined the reliability or predictive validity of manual unloading tests of the lumbar spine to identify potential responders to lumbar mechanical traction.To determine: (1) the intra and inter-rater reliability of a manual unloading test of the lumbar spine and (2) the criterion referenced predictive validity for the manual unloading test.Ten volunteers with low back pain (LBP) underwent a manual unloading test to establish reliability. In a separate procedure, 30 consecutive patients with LBP (age 50·86±11·51) were assessed for pain in their most provocative standing position (visual analog scale (VAS) 49·53±25·52 mm). Patients were assessed with a manual unloading test in their most provocative position followed by a single application of intermittent mechanical traction. Post traction, pain in the provocative position was reassessed and utilized as the outcome criterion.The test of unloading demonstrated substantial intra and inter-rater reliability K?=?1·00, P?=?0·002, K?=?0·737, P?=?0·001, respectively. There were statistically significant within group differences for pain response following traction for patients with a positive manual unloading test (P<0·001), while patients with a negative manual unloading test did not demonstrate a statistically significant change (P>0·05). There were significant between group differences for proportion of responders to traction based on manual unloading response (P?=?0·031), and manual unloading response demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship with traction response Phi?=?0·443, P?=?0·015.The manual unloading test appears to be a reliable test and has a moderate to strong correlation with pain relief that exceeds minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following traction supporting the validity of this test.

SUBMITTER: Swanson BT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4984809 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Swanson Brian T BT Riley Sean P SP Cote Mark P MP Leger Robin R RR Moss Isaac L IL Carlos John J

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20160501 2

<h4>Background</h4>To date, no research has examined the reliability or predictive validity of manual unloading tests of the lumbar spine to identify potential responders to lumbar mechanical traction.<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine: (1) the intra and inter-rater reliability of a manual unloading test of the lumbar spine and (2) the criterion referenced predictive validity for the manual unloading test.<h4>Methods</h4>Ten volunteers with low back pain (LBP) underwent a manual unloading test to esta ...[more]

PMID: 27559274

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo characterize the inter- and intraobserver variability of qualitative, non-disk contour degenerative findings of the lumbar spine at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Materials and methodsThe case accrual method used to perform this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was the random selection of 111 interpretable MR examination cases of subjects from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. The subjects were aged 18-87 years (mean, 53 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]). Four independent readers rated the cases according to defined criteria. A subsample of 40 MR examination cases was selected for reevaluation at least 1 month later. The following findings were assessed: spondylolisthesis, disk degeneration, marrow endplate abnormality (Modic changes), posterior anular hyperintense zone (HIZ), and facet arthropathy. Inter- and intraobserver agreement in rating the data was summarized by using weighted kappa statistics.ResultsInterobserver agreement was good (kappa = 0.66) in rating disk degeneration and moderate in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.55), Modic changes (kappa = 0.59), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.54), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.44). Interobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate: kappa Values were 0.43 for determining superior anteroposterior extent, 0.47 for determining superior craniocaudal extent, 0.57 for determining inferior anteroposterior extent, and 0.48 for determining inferior craniocaudal extent. Intraobserver agreement was good in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.66), disk degeneration (kappa = 0.74), Modic changes (kappa = 0.64), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.69), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.67). Intraobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate, with kappa values of 0.54 for superior anteroposterior, 0.60 for inferior anteroposterior, 0.50 for superior craniocaudal, and 0.60 for inferior craniocaudal extent determinations.ConclusionThe interpretation of general lumbar spine MR characteristics has sufficient reliability to warrant the further evaluation of these features as potential prognostic indicators.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal 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.MethodsIn 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).ResultsOnly 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundFor diagnostic procedures to be clinically useful, they must be reliable. The interpretation of lumbar spine MRI scans is subject to variability and there is a lack of studies where reliability of multiple degenerative pathologies are rated simultaneously. The objective of our study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of three independent raters evaluating degenerative pathologies seen with lumbar spine MRI.MethodsFifty-nine people, 35 patients with low back pain (LBP) or LBP and leg pain and 24 people without LBP or leg pain, received an MRI of the lumbar spine. Three raters (one radiologist and two chiropractors) evaluated the MRIs for the presence and severity of eight degenerative spinal pathologies using a standardized format: Spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, annular fissure, disc degeneration, disc contour, nerve root compromise, spinal stenosis and facet joint degeneration. Findings were identified and classified at disc level according to type and severity. Raters were instructed to evaluate all study sample persons once to assess inter-rater reliability (fully crossed design). Reliability was calculated using Gwet's Agreement Coefficients (AC1 and AC2) and Cohen's Kappa (κ) and Conger's extension of Cohen's. Gwet's probabilistic benchmarking method to the Landis and Koch scale was used. MRI-findings achieving substantial reliability was considered acceptable.ResultsInter-rater reliability for all raters combined, ranged from (Gwet's AC1 or AC2): 0.64-0.99 and according to probabilistic benchmarking to the Landis and Koch scale equivalent to moderate to almost perfect reliability. Overall reliability level for individual pathologies was almost perfect reliability for spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, scoliosis and annular fissure, substantial for nerve root compromise and disc degeneration, and moderate for facet joint degeneration and disc contour.ConclusionInter-rater reliability for 3 raters, evaluating 177 disc levels, was found to be overall acceptable for 6 out of 8 degenerative MRI-findings in the lumbar spine. Ratings of facet joint degeneration and disc contour achieved moderate reliability and was considered unacceptable.

Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is often considered to be an essential component of lumbar spine physiotherapy and orthopedic assessment. The measurement can be carried out through various instruments such as inclinometers, goniometers, and etc. Recent smartphones have been equipped with accelerometers and magnetometers, which, through specific software applications (apps) can be used for inclinometric functions.PurposeThe main purpose was to investigate the reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) app (TiltMeter(©) -advanced level and inclinometer) for measuring standing lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM in asymptomatic subjects.DesignA cross-sectional study was carried out.SettingThis study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic located at School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Science and Health Services, Tehran, Iran.SubjectsA convenience sample of 30 asymptomatic adults (15 males; 15 females; age range = 18-55 years) was recruited between August 2015 and December 2015.MethodsFollowing a 2-minute warm-up, the subjects were asked to stand in a relaxed position and their skin was marked at the T12-L1 and S1-S2 spinal levels. From this position, they were asked to perform maximum lumbar flexion followed by maximum lumbar extension with their knees straight. Two blinded raters each used an inclinometer and the iPhone (®) app to measure lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM. A third rater read the measured angles. To calculate total lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM, the measurement from S1-S2 was subtracted from T12-L1. The second (2 hours later) and third (48 hours later) sessions were carried out in the same manner as the first session. All of the measurements were conducted 3 times and the mean value of 3 repetitions for each measurement was used for analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models (3, k) and (2, k) were used to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish concurrent validity of the iPhone(®) app. Furthermore, minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was computed as 1.96 × standard error of measurement × [Formula: see text].ResultsGood to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were demonstrated for both the gravity-based inclinometer with ICC values of ?0.84 and ?0.77 and the iPhone(®) app with ICC values of ?0.85 and ?0.85, respectively. The MDC95 ranged from 5.82°to 8.18°for the intra-rater analysis and from 7.38°to 8.66° for the inter-rater analysis. The concurrent validity for flexion and extension between the 2 instruments was 0.85 and 0.91, respectively.ConclusionsThe iPhone(®)app possesses good to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. It seems that the iPhone(®) app can be used for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM.Level of evidenceIIb.

Dataset Information

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Publications

Manual unloading of the lumbar spine: can it identify immediate responders to mechanical traction in a low back pain population? A study of reliability and criterion referenced predictive validity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets