Reliability and validity of manual palpation for the assessment of patients with low back pain: a systematic and critical review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Static or motion manual palpation of the low back is commonly used to assess pain location and reproduction in low back pain (LBP) patients. The purpose of this study is to review the reliability and validity of manual palpation used for the assessment of LBP in adults.Method
We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2019. We critically appraised internal validity of studies using QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments. We stratified results using best-evidence synthesis. Validity studies were classified according to Sackett and Haynes.Results
We identified 2023 eligible articles, of which 14 were low risk of bias. Evidence suggests that reliability of soft tissue structures palpation is inconsistent, and reliability of bony structures and joint mobility palpation is poor. We found preliminary evidence that gluteal muscle palpation for tenderness may be valid in differentiating LBP patients with and without radiculopathy.Conclusion
Reliability of manual palpation tests in the assessment of LBP patients varies greatly. This is problematic because these tests are commonly used by manual therapists and clinicians. Little is known about the validity of these tests; therefore, their clinical utility is uncertain. High quality validity studies are needed to inform the clinical use of manual palpation tests.
SUBMITTER: Nolet PS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390263 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Individuals afflicted with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) exhibit altered fundamental movement patterns. However, there is a lack of validated analysis tools. The present study aimed to elucidate the measurement properties of a functional movement analysis (FMA) in patients with CLBP. METHODS:In this validation (cross-sectional) study, patients with CLPB completed the FMA. The FMA consists of 11 standardised motor tasks mimicking activities of daily living. Four investigators (two experts and two novices) evaluated each item using an ordinal scale (0-5 points, one live and three video ratings). Interrater reliability was computed for the total score (maximum 55 points) using intra class correlation and for the individual items using Cohen's weighted Kappa and free-marginal Kappa. Validity was estimated by calculating Spearman's Rho correlations to compare the results of the movement analysis and the participants' self-reported disability, and fear of movement. RESULTS:Twenty-one participants (12 females, 9 males; 42.7?±?14.3?years) were included. The reliability analysis for the sum score yielded ICC values between .92 and.94 (p?<?.05). The classification of individual scores are categorised 'slight' to 'almost perfect' agreement (.10-.91). No significant associations between disability or fear of movement with the overall score were found (p?>?.05). The study population showed comparably low pain levels, low scores of kinesiophobia and disability. CONCLUSION:The functional movement analysis displays excellent reliability for both, live and video rating. Due to the low levels of disability and pain in the present sample, further research is necessary to conclusively judge validity.
| S-EPMC6717644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8033700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe Bournemouth Questionnaire is a comprehensive and short form multidimensional instrument developed to evaluate the health status of individuals with low back pain. The objective of this study was to verify the construct validity and the test-retest reliability of the Brazilian version of Bournemouth Questionnaire in individuals with low back pain.MethodsThis is a methodological study that included 65 patients with low back pain. The Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was applied twice, and the test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable change (MDC), and internal consistency. The construct validity of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was assessed using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and also with the following questionnaires: Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).ResultsThe total score of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire showed ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.90), Cronbach´s alpha of 0.85, SEM of 5.97, and MDC of 15.54, without evidence of ceiling and floor effects. The total score of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was correlated to the NPRS for current (r = 0.64), highest (r = 0.49), and lowest (r = 0.67) pain as well as scores on the RMDQ (r = 0.58), ODI (r = 0.42), and SF-36 (r = -0.58).ConclusionThe total score of the Brazilian version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire is valid and reliable to be used with patients with low back pain.
| S-EPMC7817867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunctional tests are important clinical tools, since they are non-invasive methods, with simple applicability, and low cost. However, there are few tests adapted for individuals with chronic low back pain. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the 2-Minute Step Test in individuals with chronic low back pain and to correlate the test score with measures of pain and physical activity.MethodsWe included patients aged between 18 and 45 years, of both sexes, and with low back pain. The interval between the test and retest was 7 days. We analyzed the data via intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), confidence interval at 95%, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change for reliability. We used the Spearman's correlation coefficient to verify the correlation between 2-Minute Step Test and measures of pain and physical activity (Numerical Pain Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Pain-Related Catastrophizing Thoughts Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire).ResultsSample is composed of 37 individuals, most of them female, with overweight and low back pain > 60 months. 2-Minute Step Test showed excellent test-retest (ICC = 0.903) and inter-rater (ICC = 0.925) reliability. Sport domain of the Baecke showed a significant correlation with the 2-Minute Step Test (rho = 0.444).Conclusion2-Minute Step Test is a reliable measure to measure the functional capacity of patients with chronic low back pain considering different times and examiners, as well as being positively correlated with sports practice.
| S-EPMC9721032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain (LBP) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year. Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period. However, not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population. A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population.MethodsA search of articles was performed in Pubmed, Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms 'epidemiology'; 'low back pain' or 'back pain'; 'prospective study' or 'longitudinal study'; 'follow-up', 'natural course', 'course' or 'natural history'; 'general population' or 'working population'. Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population, that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months, and that there were three points of observation or more. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers using three checklists relating to description of studies, quality and outcomes. The course of LBP was established in relation to those who, at baseline, were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP. Would this course be stable, fluctuating, worsening, or improving over time? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form.ResultsEight articles were included. Articles were different on time span, the number of surveys, and the definition of LBP. In six of the seven relevant studies, for those with no LBP at baseline, relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified. In six of the seven relevant studies, definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement (becoming pain free) was never reported to be a common finding.ConclusionThe status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time, perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline.
| S-EPMC3599187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo 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.PurposeTo 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.MethodsTen 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.ResultsThe 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.Discussion and conclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC4984809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.ResultsFour high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.ConclusionsThe clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.
| S-EPMC2873245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: The causes of low back pain in China and Western countries are extremely different. We attempted to analyze the risk factors of low back pain in urban and rural patients under the dual economy with the simplified Chinese version of Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (SC-RMDQ) to demonstrate that SC-RMDQ could evaluate patients with low back pain arising from different causes. METHODS: Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was translated into SCRMDQ according to international guidelines for questionnaire adaptation. In this study, causes of low back pain of 187 outpatients and inpatients (99 urban patients and 88 rural patients) were analyzed. All patients underwent simplified Chinese version of Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (SC-RMDQ), simplified Chinese Oswestry disability index (SCODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Reliability was tested using reproducibility (intraclass coefficient of correlation--ICC) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). Validity was tested using Pearson correlation analysis. RESULTS: The leading causes for low back pain were sedentariness (38.4%) and vibration (18.1%) in urban patients and waist bending (48.9%) and spraining (25%) in rural patients. Although causes of low back pain in the two groups of population were completely different, SCRMDQ had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α value of 0.874 in urban patients and 0.883 in rural patients) and good reproducibility (ICC value of .952 in urban patients and 0.949 in rural patients, P<0.01). SCRMDQ also showed significant correlation with Simplified Chinese version of Oswestry disability index (SCODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in rural areas (SCRMDQ-SCODI r = 0.841; SCRMDQ-VAS: r = 0.685, P<0.01) and in urban areas (SCRMDQ-SCODI: r = 0.818, P<0.01; SCRMDQ-VAS: r = 0.666, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although causes of low back pain are completely different in rural and urban patients, SCRMDQ has a good reliability and validity, which is a reliable clinical method to evaluate disability of rural and urban patients.
| S-EPMC3267758 | biostudies-other
Project description:Although portable instruments have been used in the assessment of sleep disturbance for patients with low back pain (LBP), the accuracy of the instruments in detecting sleep/wake episodes for this population is unknown. This study investigated the criterion validity of two portable instruments (Armband and Actiwatch) for assessing sleep disturbance in patients with LBP. 50 patients with LBP performed simultaneous overnight sleep recordings in a university sleep laboratory. All 50 participants were assessed by Polysomnography (PSG) and the Armband and a subgroup of 33 participants wore an Actiwatch. Criterion validity was determined by calculating epoch-by-epoch agreement, sensitivity, specificity and prevalence and bias- adjusted kappa (PABAK) for sleep versus wake between each instrument and PSG. The relationship between PSG and the two instruments was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 2, 1). The study participants showed symptoms of sub-threshold insomnia (mean ISI = 13.2, 95% CI = 6.36) and poor sleep quality (mean PSQI = 9.20, 95% CI = 4.27). Observed agreement with PSG was 85% and 88% for the Armband and Actiwatch. Sensitivity was 0.90 for both instruments and specificity was 0.54 and 0.67 and PABAK of 0.69 and 0.77 for the Armband and Actiwatch respectively. The ICC (95%CI) was 0.76 (0.61 to 0.86) and 0.80 (0.46 to 0.92) for total sleep time, 0.52 (0.29 to 0.70) and 0.55 (0.14 to 0.77) for sleep efficiency, 0.64 (0.45 to 0.78) and 0.52 (0.23 to 0.73) for wake after sleep onset and 0.13 (-0.15 to 0.39) and 0.33 (-0.05 to 0.63) for sleep onset latency, for the Armband and Actiwatch, respectively. The findings showed that both instruments have varied criterion validity across the sleep parameters from excellent validity for measures of total sleep time, good validity for measures of sleep efficiency and wake after onset to poor validity for sleep onset latency.
| S-EPMC3998977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.MethodsThis study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.DiscussionThis study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.
| S-EPMC4074830 | biostudies-literature