Dataset Information

A diagnostic tool for people with lumbar instability: a criterion-related validity study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several clinical tests used to identify patients with lumbar instability have reported diagnostic accuracy in separate studies with conflicting results. To augment the diagnostic process, tests that are better able to identify lumbar instability suitable for use in the clinical setting are required. The aim of this study was to identify the probability to diagnose patients with lumbar instability, using x-ray imaging as the reference standard.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional, diagnostic validity study. One hundred forty participants with chronic low back pain underwent an x-ray assessment and 14 clinical examinations. Data were analysed using multivariate regression methods to determine which clinical tests were most diagnostic for lumbar instability when they were applied together.

Results

Eighteen (12.85%) participants had radiological lumbar instability. Three clinical tests i) interspinous gap change during flexion-extension, ii) passive accessory intervertebral movement tests, iii) posterior shear test demonstrated an ability to diagnose lumbar instability of 67% when they were all positive. At this probability threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (−LR) were 5.56, 99.18%, 6.78, and 0.95.

Conclusions

These 3 clinical tests could be useful in identifying patients with lumbar instability in the general community. These three tests are simple to perform by physical therapists, reliable to use in a clinical setting, and safe for patients. We recommend physical therapists use these three tests to assess patients who are suspected of having lumbar instability, in the absence of an x-ray assessment, to receive appropriate targeted intervention or referral for further investigation.

Trial registration

Thai Clinial Trial Registry (TCTR 20180820001; 19th August 2018).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04854-w.

SUBMITTER: Chatprem T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BACKGROUND:Prevention of multi-morbidities following non-communicable diseases requires a systematic registration of adverse modifiable risk factors, including low physical fitness. The aim of the study was to establish criterion validity and reliability of a smartphone app (InterWalk) delivered fitness test in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS:Patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 27, mean (SD) age 64.2 (5.9) years, BMI 30.0 (5.1) kg/m2, (30 % male)) completed a 7-min progressive walking protocol twice (with and without encouragement). VO2 during the test was assessed using indirect calorimetry and the acceleration (vector magnitude) from the smartphone was obtained. The vector magnitude was used to predict VO2peak along with the co-variates weight, height and sex. The validity of the algorithm was tested when the smartphone was placed in the right pocket of the pants or jacket. The algorithm was validated using leave-one-out cross validation. Test-retest reliability was tested in a subset of participants (N = 10). RESULTS:The overall VO2peak prediction of the algorithm (R2) was 0.60 and 0.45 when the smartphone was placed in the pockets of the pants and jacket, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean bias (limits of agreement) in the cross validation was-0.4 (38) % (pants) and-0.1 (46) % (jacket). When the smartphone was placed in the jacket a significant intensity dependent bias (r = 0.5, p = 0.02) was observed. The test-retest intraclass correlations were 0.85 and 0.86 (p < 0.001), for the pants and jacket, respectively. No effects of encouragement were observed on test performance. CONCLUSION:In conclusion, the InterWalk Fitness Test is accurate and reliable for persons with type 2 diabetes when the smartphone is placed in the side pocket of the pants for. The test could give a fair estimate of the CRF in absence of a progressive maximal test during standardized conditions with the appropriate equipment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.org (NCT02089477), first registered (prospectively) on March 14th 2014.

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:BACKGROUND: There is no validated gold-standard diagnostic support tool for LSS, and therefore an accurate diagnosis depends on clinical assessment. Assessment of the diagnostic value of the history of the patient requires an evaluation of the differences and overlap of symptoms of the radicular and cauda equina types; however, no tool is available for evaluation of the LSS category. We attempted to develop a self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire as a diagnostic support tool for LSS using a clinical epidemiological approach. The aim of the present study was to use this tool to assess the diagnostic value of the history of the patient for categorization of LSS. METHODS: The initial derivation study included 137 patients with LSS and 97 with lumbar disc herniation who successfully recovered following surgical treatment. The LSS patients were categorized into radicular and cauda equina types based on history, physical examinations, and MRI. Predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two types and for cauda equina symptoms in LSS were derived by univariate analysis. A self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire (SSHQ) was developed based on these findings. A prospective derivation study was then performed in a series of 115 patients with LSS who completed the SSHQ before surgery. All these patients recovered following surgical treatment. The sensitivity of the SSHQ was calculated and clinical prediction rules for LSS were developed. A validation study was subsequently performed on 250 outpatients who complained of lower back pain with or without leg symptoms. The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were calculated, and the test-retest reliability over two weeks was investigated in 217 patients whose symptoms remained unchanged. RESULTS: The key predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two categories of LSS were age > 50, lower-extremity pain or numbness, increased pain when walking, increased pain when standing, and relief of symptoms on bending forward (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The key predictive factors for cauda equina type symptoms were numbness around the buttocks, walking almost causes urination, a burning sensation around the buttocks, numbness in the soles of both feet, numbness in both legs, and numbness without pain (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were 84% and 78%, respectively, in the validation data set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.797 in the derivation set and 0.782 in the validation data set. In the test-retest analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the first and second tests was 85%. CONCLUSION: A new self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire was developed successfully as a diagnostic support tool for LSS.