Cargando…

INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution

Objective: A pilot study was conducted to determine whether untrained examiners could agree on palpatory findings in the cervical spine. Design: Fifty-three university students, (most of whom were chiropractic students), had their cervical spines examined by seven different chiropractors using their...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tuchin, Peter J., Hart, Christopher J., Johnson, Catriona, Colman, Robert, Gee, Adam, Edwards, Ian, Plucknett, Mark, Bonello, Rod
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 1996
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2050612/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17987136
_version_ 1782137188420419584
author Tuchin, Peter J.
Hart, Christopher J.
Johnson, Catriona
Colman, Robert
Gee, Adam
Edwards, Ian
Plucknett, Mark
Bonello, Rod
author_facet Tuchin, Peter J.
Hart, Christopher J.
Johnson, Catriona
Colman, Robert
Gee, Adam
Edwards, Ian
Plucknett, Mark
Bonello, Rod
author_sort Tuchin, Peter J.
collection PubMed
description Objective: A pilot study was conducted to determine whether untrained examiners could agree on palpatory findings in the cervical spine. Design: Fifty-three university students, (most of whom were chiropractic students), had their cervical spines examined by seven different chiropractors using their own clinical methods, of which motion palpation was a common, but not standard component. Setting: Chiropractic Centre in Macquarie University. Participants: Volunteer university students. Main Outcome Measures: Individual clinical methods, which included static and/or motion palpation, vertebral springing, range of motion and applied kinesiology. Results: Statistically, for the total group, there was poor interexaminer reliability. Of eight examiners, four did not disagree significantly, the next two examiners disagreed with each other but only at a single level and the remaining two examiners disagreed with most of the other examiners and each other. Conclusion: In the cervical spine, it appears that C6 is the level of highest contention, followed by C1 and C5. Essentially the results suggest that combinations of examiners show reasonable consistency at identifying the same entity while using their own typical examination techniques. The nature of these palpable findings, leading to a diagnosis of subluxation or vertebral dysfunction is ill defined. Several issues were considered as important: expectations of examiners, research design, subject compliance, role of asymptomatic subjects and what the examiners were actually detecting.
format Text
id pubmed-2050612
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1996
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-20506122007-11-06 INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution Tuchin, Peter J. Hart, Christopher J. Johnson, Catriona Colman, Robert Gee, Adam Edwards, Ian Plucknett, Mark Bonello, Rod Australas Chiropr Osteopathy Article Objective: A pilot study was conducted to determine whether untrained examiners could agree on palpatory findings in the cervical spine. Design: Fifty-three university students, (most of whom were chiropractic students), had their cervical spines examined by seven different chiropractors using their own clinical methods, of which motion palpation was a common, but not standard component. Setting: Chiropractic Centre in Macquarie University. Participants: Volunteer university students. Main Outcome Measures: Individual clinical methods, which included static and/or motion palpation, vertebral springing, range of motion and applied kinesiology. Results: Statistically, for the total group, there was poor interexaminer reliability. Of eight examiners, four did not disagree significantly, the next two examiners disagreed with each other but only at a single level and the remaining two examiners disagreed with most of the other examiners and each other. Conclusion: In the cervical spine, it appears that C6 is the level of highest contention, followed by C1 and C5. Essentially the results suggest that combinations of examiners show reasonable consistency at identifying the same entity while using their own typical examination techniques. The nature of these palpable findings, leading to a diagnosis of subluxation or vertebral dysfunction is ill defined. Several issues were considered as important: expectations of examiners, research design, subject compliance, role of asymptomatic subjects and what the examiners were actually detecting. BioMed Central 1996-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2050612/ /pubmed/17987136 Text en Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia
spellingShingle Article
Tuchin, Peter J.
Hart, Christopher J.
Johnson, Catriona
Colman, Robert
Gee, Adam
Edwards, Ian
Plucknett, Mark
Bonello, Rod
INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title_full INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title_fullStr INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title_full_unstemmed INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title_short INTEREXAMINER RELIABILITY OF CHIROPRACTIC EVALUATION FOR CERVICAL SPINE PROBLEMS—A Pilot Study: Part 1: Graduates from one Institution
title_sort interexaminer reliability of chiropractic evaluation for cervical spine problems—a pilot study: part 1: graduates from one institution
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2050612/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17987136
work_keys_str_mv AT tuchinpeterj interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT hartchristopherj interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT johnsoncatriona interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT colmanrobert interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT geeadam interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT edwardsian interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT plucknettmark interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution
AT bonellorod interexaminerreliabilityofchiropracticevaluationforcervicalspineproblemsapilotstudypart1graduatesfromoneinstitution