Diagnostic utility of clinical tests for spinal dysfunction

Clinical utility of a cluster of tests as a diagnostic support tool for clinical lumbar instability

BACKGROUND

Numerous clinical tests have been proposed for the diagnosis of clinical lumbar instability (CLI), but a cluster of clinical tests is still needed to increase the accuracy of CLI diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a diagnostic support tool intended to identify the presence of CLI using a cluster of clinical tests.

DESIGN

Analytical cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Two hundred participants with chronic low back pain (LBP) were diagnosed with or without CLI by an orthopedic surgeon. The orthopedic surgeon made the diagnosis from classic clinical symptoms and signs. The diagnosis was used as the reference standard. An orthopedic physical therapist used four clinical tests to identify CLI in each participant, including the apprehension sign, the instability catch sign with/without the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM), the painful catch sign with/without the ADIM, and the prone instability test.

RESULTS

For an individual test, the apprehension sign showed a high specificity (92.6%) and a positive likelihood ratio (LR+; 2.4) but a very low sensitivity of 17.4%. A cluster of three of the four examined tests provided the most diagnostic accuracy for CLI, with a high LR+ (5.8) and a high specificity (91.7%) but low sensitivity (47.8%) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-; 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

A cluster of three of the four examined tests was determined to comprise a powerful clinical support tool for the identification of CLI patients as tested against a reference standard diagnosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Thai Clinical Trials Registry. Registration number: TCTR20190426002.

Evaluation of anterotalofibular and calcaneofibular ligament stress tests utilizing musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging

Study Design: A quasi-experimentalBackground: The talar tilt test and the anterior drawer test are clinically used to evaluate the length of the anterotalofibular (ATFL) and calcaneofibular (CFL) ligaments. Based on the current literature, there is no clear diagnostic utility or preference for either test. This study investigated ligament lengthening during these special tests and compared the talar tilt test to the long axis distraction test for the CFL length.Methods: A convenience sample of 47 healthy subjects were recruited for this study. Musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging (MSK US) was used to measure the length of the ATFL and CFL during the talar tilt and anterior drawer tests. Additionally, CFL lengthening during the talar tilt was compared to the long axis distraction test.Outcomes: A significant difference was found (p < .001) in ATFL length between the talar tilt and anterior drawer test. This indicates that the talar tilt test is preferred to maximally lengthen the ATFL. There was a significant difference in CFL length (p < .001) between the talar tilt test and the long axis distraction test.Discussion: The results of this study identified that the talar tilt test resulted in more ATFL lengthening than the anterior drawer test and thus is the preferred test to assess ligament length. Additionally, both the long axis distraction test and the talar tilt test cause lengthening of the CFL. Therefore, the long axis distraction test can be used as a differentiation test to determine if either the ATFL or the CFL is the structure with increased laxity.

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Differential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to evaluate whether physical tests can differentiate CGH from migraine or both conditions from asymptomatic subjects.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

A systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned which will include databases, hand searching of key journals and consultation of relevant leading authors in this field. Terms and keywords will be selected after discussion and agreement. Two independent reviewers will perform the search and select studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, including any cohort or observational studies evaluating the topic of this review; a third reviewer will confirm accuracy. A narrative synthesis will be developed for all included studies and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies and the Downs and Black scale for those studies where the QUADAS-2 checklist cannot be applied.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required since no patient information will be collected. The results will provide a deeper understanding about the possibility of using physical tests to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and from asymptomatic subjects, which has direct relevance for clinicians managing people with headache. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019135269.

The interrater reliability of a pain mechanisms-based classification for patients with nonspecific neck pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine the interrater reliability and agreement of a pain mechanisms-based classification for patients with nonspecific neck pain (NSNP).

METHODS

Design - Observational, cross-sectional reliability study with a simultaneous examiner design.

SETTING

University hospital-based outpatient physical therapy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of 48 patients, aged between 18 and 75 years old, with a primary complaint of neck pain was included.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects underwent a standardized subjective and clinical examination, performed by 1 experienced physical therapist. Two assessors independently classified the participants' NSNP on 3 main outcome measures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Cohen kappa, percent agreement, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the interrater reliability for (1) the predominant pain mechanism; (2) the predominant pain pattern; and (3) the predominant dysfunction pattern (DP).

RESULTS

There was almost perfect agreement between the 2 physical therapists' judgements on the predominant pain mechanism, kappa=.84 (95% CI, .65-1.00), p<.001. There was substantial agreement between the raters' judgements on the predominant pain pattern and predominant DP with respectively kappa=.61 (95% CI, .42-.80); and kappa=.62 (95% CI, .44-.79), p<.001.

CONCLUSION(S)

The proposed classification exhibits substantial to almost perfect interrater reliability. Further validity testing in larger neck pain populations is required before the information is used in clinical settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03147508 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03147508).

Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapy Assessment and Treatment in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews.During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions.In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual."In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar.In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary.In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks.

Classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain population using a combined McKenzie and patho-anatomical assessment

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapists use musculo-skeletal classification systems for patient assessment. Since its early development, the McKenzie lumbar spine assessment (MK) has been incorporated into examination algorithms and combined with a series of patho-anatomical diagnostic tests. No previous studies have used a MK and a combined examination (MK-C) to provide a detailed profile of patients, report and compare the classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain (CLBP) population.

OBJECTIVE

To report the classification characteristics of a CLBP population using MK and MK-C examinations, and conduct inter-classification comparison of the MK-C for demographics, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Index (RM), Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire (MSPQ), symptom duration and intensity.

METHOD

A prospective cross-sectional study conducted in a spinal clinic by a MK trained physiotherapist.

RESULTS

Results were obtained in 150 patients. Using MK, 31% (n = 47) of participants were classified as inconclusive. Following MK-C only 6% of participants remained inconclusive (n = 9). The most frequent MK-C classification was facet joint syndrome (FJS) (49%). Participants with FJS were significantly older than those classified as discogenic (p < 0.001; CI 3.96 ̶ 19.74), or mixed (p < 0.001; CI 5.98 ̶ 36.41). Participants classified as discogenic had significantly higher RM (p = 0.022) and MSPQ (p = 0.005) scores than FJS.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated that 94% of CLBP patients could be classified using a MK-C. The most common presentation in CLBP was facet joint syndrome. Age, RM and MSPQ appeared to be distinguishing characteristics of this population. Future studies should be conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the MK-C.

PREPARE: Pre-surgery physiotherapy for patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder: a randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for the management of patients with specific low back pain pathology suggest non-surgical intervention as first-line treatment, but there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations of the content in the non-surgical intervention. Opinions regarding the dose of non-surgical intervention that should be trialled prior to decision making about surgery intervention vary. The aim of the present study is to investigate if physiotherapy administrated before surgery improves function, pain and health in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder scheduled for surgery. The patients are followed over two years. A secondary aim is to study what factors predict short and long term outcomes.

METHODS

This study is a single blinded, 2-arm, randomized controlled trial with follow-up after the completion of pre-surgery intervention as well as 3, 12 and 24 months post-surgery. The study will recruit men and women, 25 to 80 years of age, scheduled for surgery due to; disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease. A total of 202 patients will be randomly allocated to a pre-surgery physiotherapy intervention or a waiting list group for 9 weeks. The waiting-list group will receive standardized information about surgery, post-surgical rehabilitation and advice to stay active. The pre-surgery physiotherapy group will receive physiotherapy 2 times per week, consisting of a stratified classification treatment, based on assessment findings. One of the following treatments will be selected; a) Specific exercises and mobilization, b) Motor control exercises or c) Traction. The pre-surgery physiotherapy group will also be prescribed a tailor-made general supervised exercise program. The physiotherapist will use a behavioral approach aimed at reducing patient fear avoidance and increasing activity levels. They will also receive standardized information about surgery, post-surgical rehabilitation and advice to stay active. Primary outcome measure is Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures are the visual analogue scale for back and leg pain, pain drawing, health related quality of life, Hospital anxiety and depression scale, Fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, Self-efficacy scale and Work Ability Index.

DISCUSSION

The study findings will help improve the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder scheduled for surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02454400 (Trial registration date: August 31st 2015) and has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02454400 .

Evidence base and future research directions in the management of low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition. Awareness of valid and reliable patient history taking, physical examination and clinical testing is important for diagnostic accuracy. Stratified care which targets treatment to patient subgroups based on key characteristics is reliant upon accurate diagnostics. Models of stratified care that can potentially improve treatment effects include prognostic risk profiling for persistent LBP, likely response to specific treatment based on clinical prediction models or suspected underlying causal mechanisms. The focus of this editorial is to highlight current research status and future directions for LBP diagnostics and stratified care.

Physical examination tests for screening and diagnosis of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review

It has been suggested that differential diagnosis of headaches should consist of a robust subjective examination and a detailed physical examination of the cervical spine. Cervicogenic headache (CGH) is a form of headache that involves referred pain from the neck. To our knowledge, no studies have summarized the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of physical examination tests for CGH. The aim of this study was to summarize the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of physical examination tests used to diagnose CGH. A systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus). Full text reports concerning physical tests for the diagnosis of CGH which reported the clinometric properties for assessment of CGH, were included and screened for methodological quality. Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) and Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) scores were completed to assess article quality. Eight articles were retrieved for quality assessment and data extraction. Studies investigating diagnostic reliability of physical examination tests for CGH scored poorer on methodological quality (higher risk of bias) than those of diagnostic accuracy. There is sufficient evidence showing high levels of reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the selected physical examination tests for the diagnosis of CGH. The cervical flexion-rotation test (CFRT) exhibited both the highest reliability and the strongest diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of CGH.

The utility of clinical measures for the diagnosis of achilles tendon injuries: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and evaluate the current diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures used to diagnose Achilles tendon injuries.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted with key words related to diagnostic accuracy and Achilles tendon injuries.

STUDY SELECTION

Original research articles investigating Achilles tendon injuries against an acceptable reference standard were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to pool sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), and diagnostic odds ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

DATA SYNTHESIS

The SN and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) values for Achilles tendon rupture measures ranged from 0.73 (95% CI = 0.65, 0.81) and 0.30 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.40) to 0.96 (95% CI = 0.93, 0.99) and 0.04 (95% CI = 0.02, 0.10), respectively, whereas SP and positive likelihood ratio (+LR) values ranged from 0.85 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.98) and 6.29 (95% CI = 2.33, 19.96) to 0.93 (95% CI = 0.84, 1.00) and 13.71 (95% CI = 3.54, 51.24), respectively, with the highest SN and SP both reported in the calf-squeeze test. The SN and -LR values for Achilles tendinopathy measures ranged from 0.03 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.08) and 0.97 (95% CI = not reported) to 0.89 (95% CI = 0.75, 0.98) and 0.19 (95% CI = not reported), whereas SP and +LR values ranged from 0.58 (95% CI = 0.38, 0.77) and 2.12 (95% CI = not reported) to 1.00 (95% CI = 1.00, 1.00) and infinity, respectively, with the highest SN and SP reported for morning stiffness and palpation for crepitus. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic properties in all 3 clinical measures (arc sign, palpation, and Royal London Hospital test), with SN and -LR ranging from 0.42 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.62) and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.93), respectively, for the arc sign, to 0.64 (95% CI = 0.44, 0.81) and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.29, 0.80), respectively, for palpation. Pooled SP and +LR ranged from 0.81 (95% CI = 0.65, 0.91) and 3.15 (95% CI = 1.61, 6.18), respectively, for palpation, to 0.88 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.96) SP for the arc sign and 3.84 (95% CI = 1.69, 8.73) +LR for the Royal London Hospital test.

CONCLUSIONS

Most clinical measures for Achilles tendon injury have greater diagnostic than screening capability.

Congenital 'butterfly vertebra' associated with low back pain: a case report

The butterfly vertebral defect is a rare congenital anomaly of the spine, which is generally considered benign. In this report we present the case of an active young man who presented with recurrent low back pain (LBP), and was found to have a butterfly vertebral defect at the symptomatic L4 lumbar spinal level. We describe the genesis of the butterfly vertebral defect, in the context of normal embryological development of the human vertebra and intervertebral disk. We report the clinical examination findings and therapeutic interventions undertaken prior to the radiographic discovery of the vertebral defect, and discuss the impact that the presence of a butterfly vertebral defect presented to therapeutic decision-making.

Criterion-concurrent Validity of Spinal Mobility Tests in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Objective.

To examine the level of evidence for criterion-concurrent validity of spinal mobility assessments in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods.

Guidelines proposed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used to undertake a search strategy involving 3 sets of keywords: accura*, truth, valid*; ankylosing spondylitis, spondyloarthritis, spondyloarthropathy, spondylarthritis; mobility, spinal measure*, (a further 16 keywords with similar meaning were used). Seven databases were searched from their inception to February 2014: AMED, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (with modifications) was used to assess the quality of articles reviewed. An article was considered high quality when it received “yes” in at least 9 of the 13 items.

Results.

From the 741 records initially identified, 10 articles were retained for our systematic review. Only 1 article was classified as high quality, and this article suggests that 3 variants of the Schober test (original, modified, and modified-modified) poorly reflect lumbar range of motion where radiographs were used as the reference standard.

Conclusion.

The level of evidence considering criterion-concurrent validity of clinical tests used to assess spinal mobility in patients with AS is low. Clinicians should be aware that current practice when measuring spinal mobility in AS may not accurately reflect true spinal mobility.

Differential diagnosis of a patient referred to physical therapy with neck pain: a case study of a patient with an atypical presentation of angina

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A 64-year-old man with acute onset neck pain was referred to physical therapy by a neurosurgeon. The purpose of this case study is to examine the process of differential diagnosis in a patient with neck pain and to discuss common diagnostic errors that can occur in the outpatient setting.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient had an 8-week history of neck pain, which was worse when running and lifting objects. He presented with imaging of the cervical spine demonstrating degenerative changes. During the examination, several differential diagnoses were considered. A thorough physical examination of the cervical spine and upper quarter failed to reproduce his symptoms. At that time, the physical therapist was suspicious that the origin of the patient's neck pain was non-mechanical in nature. Additional testing during the examination included having the patient exercise briefly on gym equipment; this reproduced his symptoms. After additional positional and postural changes did not alleviate the symptoms, he stopped exercising, and his pain ceased.

OUTCOMES

The patient was referred back to his primary care physician who ordered cardiovascular testing including an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram. These tests revealed significant cardiac abnormalities including multi-vessel blockage of the coronary arteries and evidence of infarction. He underwent a coronary artery bypass graft 4 days later.

DISCUSSION

To make an appropriate differential diagnosis, physical therapists must use a patient-centered model of clinical reasoning and meta-cognition and have an awareness of diagnostic errors such that they can be avoided. The goal of the physical therapy examination, including differential diagnosis, is to efficiently classify the patient for treatment or to direct patients to the proper healthcare provider, thereby minimizing and preventing mortality and morbidity.

The assessment of function. Part II: clinical perspective of a javelin thrower with low back and groin pain

Assessment of an individual's functional ability can be complex. This assessment should also be individualized and adaptable to changes in functional status. In the first article of this series, we operationally defined function, discussed the construct of function, examined the evidence as it relates to assessment methods of various aspects of function, and explored the multi-dimensional nature of the concept of function. In this case report, we aim to demonstrate the utilization of a multi-dimensional assessment method (functional performance testing) as it relates to a high-level athlete presenting with pain in the low back and groin. It is our intent to demonstrate how the clinician should continually adapt their assessment dependent on the current functional abilities of the patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for assessment of hamstring injury: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of a hamstring injury has traditionally relied on various clinical measures (eg, palpation, swelling, manual resistance), as well as the use of diagnostic imaging. But a few studies have suggested the use of specific clinical tests that may be helpful for the diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current literature on the diagnostic accuracy of orthopaedic special tests for hamstring injuries and to determine their clinical utility.

METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases (along with a manual search of grey literature) was conducted using key words related to diagnostic accuracy of hamstring injuries. To be considered for inclusion in the review, the study required (1) patients with hamstring or posterior thigh pain; (2) a cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional design; (3) inclusion of at least 1 clinical examination test used to evaluate hamstring pathology; (4) comparison against an acceptable reference standard; (5) reporting of diagnostic accuracy of the measures (sensitivity [SN], specificity [SP], or likelihood ratios); and (6) publication in English. SN, SP, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each diagnostic test.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 602 potential articles, of which only 3 articles met the inclusion criteria, with only 1 of these 3 articles being of high quality. Two of the studies investigated a single special test, whereas the third article examined a composite clinical assessment employing various special tests. The SN values ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46, 0.69) for the active range-of-motion test to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00) for the taking-off-the-shoe test. The SP values ranged from 0.03 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.22) for the composite clinical assessment to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00) for the taking-off-the-shoe test, active range-of-motion test, passive range-of-motion test, and resisted range-of-motion test. The use of a single special test demonstrated stronger SP than SN properties, whereas the composite clinical assessment demonstrated stronger SN than SP properties.

CONCLUSION

Very few studies have investigated the utilization of clinical special tests for the diagnosis of hamstring injuries. Further studies of higher quality design are suggested prior to advocating independent clinical utilization of these special tests.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 3b.