Cargando…
Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review
BACKGROUND: Many health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a system...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-3-1 |
_version_ | 1782120797251305472 |
---|---|
author | Najm, Wadie I Seffinger, Michael A Mishra, Shiraz I Dickerson, Vivian M Adams, Alan Reinsch, Sibylle Murphy, Linda S Goodman, Arnold F |
author_facet | Najm, Wadie I Seffinger, Michael A Mishra, Shiraz I Dickerson, Vivian M Adams, Alan Reinsch, Sibylle Murphy, Linda S Goodman, Arnold F |
author_sort | Najm, Wadie I |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Many health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a systematic review to assess the content validity of spinal palpatory tests used to identify spinal neuro-musculoskeletal dysfunction. METHODS: Review of eleven databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed literature, published between 1965–2002, was undertaken. Two blinded reviewers abstracted pertinent data from the retrieved papers, using a specially developed quality-scoring instrument. Five papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Three of the five papers included in the review explored the content validity of motion tests. Two of these papers focused on identifying the level of fixation (decreased mobility) and one focused on range of motion. All three studies used a mechanical model as a reference standard. Two of the five papers included in the review explored the validity of pain assessment using the visual analogue scale or the subjects' own report as reference standards. Overall the sensitivity of studies looking at range of motion tests and pain varied greatly. Poor sensitivity was reported for range of motion studies regardless of the examiner's experience. A slightly better sensitivity (82%) was reported in one study that examined cervical pain. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of acceptable reference standards may have contributed to the weak sensitivity findings. Given the importance of spinal palpatory tests as part of the spinal evaluation and treatment plan, effort is required by all involved disciplines to create well-designed and implemented studies in this area. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-156889 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-1568892003-06-10 Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review Najm, Wadie I Seffinger, Michael A Mishra, Shiraz I Dickerson, Vivian M Adams, Alan Reinsch, Sibylle Murphy, Linda S Goodman, Arnold F BMC Complement Altern Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Many health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a systematic review to assess the content validity of spinal palpatory tests used to identify spinal neuro-musculoskeletal dysfunction. METHODS: Review of eleven databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed literature, published between 1965–2002, was undertaken. Two blinded reviewers abstracted pertinent data from the retrieved papers, using a specially developed quality-scoring instrument. Five papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Three of the five papers included in the review explored the content validity of motion tests. Two of these papers focused on identifying the level of fixation (decreased mobility) and one focused on range of motion. All three studies used a mechanical model as a reference standard. Two of the five papers included in the review explored the validity of pain assessment using the visual analogue scale or the subjects' own report as reference standards. Overall the sensitivity of studies looking at range of motion tests and pain varied greatly. Poor sensitivity was reported for range of motion studies regardless of the examiner's experience. A slightly better sensitivity (82%) was reported in one study that examined cervical pain. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of acceptable reference standards may have contributed to the weak sensitivity findings. Given the importance of spinal palpatory tests as part of the spinal evaluation and treatment plan, effort is required by all involved disciplines to create well-designed and implemented studies in this area. BioMed Central 2003-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC156889/ /pubmed/12734016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-3-1 Text en Copyright © 2003 Najm et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Najm, Wadie I Seffinger, Michael A Mishra, Shiraz I Dickerson, Vivian M Adams, Alan Reinsch, Sibylle Murphy, Linda S Goodman, Arnold F Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title | Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title_full | Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title_short | Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review |
title_sort | content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-3-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT najmwadiei contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT seffingermichaela contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT mishrashirazi contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT dickersonvivianm contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT adamsalan contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT reinschsibylle contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT murphylindas contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview AT goodmanarnoldf contentvalidityofmanualspinalpalpatoryexamsasystematicreview |