Cargando…

A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instabilit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferrari, Silvano, Manni, Tiziana, Bonetti, Francesca, Villafañe, Jorge Hugo, Vanti, Carla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25866618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7
_version_ 1782366059808948224
author Ferrari, Silvano
Manni, Tiziana
Bonetti, Francesca
Villafañe, Jorge Hugo
Vanti, Carla
author_facet Ferrari, Silvano
Manni, Tiziana
Bonetti, Francesca
Villafañe, Jorge Hugo
Vanti, Carla
author_sort Ferrari, Silvano
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. RESULTS: Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4392873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43928732015-04-11 A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice Ferrari, Silvano Manni, Tiziana Bonetti, Francesca Villafañe, Jorge Hugo Vanti, Carla Chiropr Man Therap Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. RESULTS: Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4392873/ /pubmed/25866618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7 Text en © Ferrari et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Ferrari, Silvano
Manni, Tiziana
Bonetti, Francesca
Villafañe, Jorge Hugo
Vanti, Carla
A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title_full A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title_fullStr A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title_short A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
title_sort literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25866618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7
work_keys_str_mv AT ferrarisilvano aliteraturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT mannitiziana aliteraturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT bonettifrancesca aliteraturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT villafanejorgehugo aliteraturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT vanticarla aliteraturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT ferrarisilvano literaturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT mannitiziana literaturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT bonettifrancesca literaturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT villafanejorgehugo literaturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice
AT vanticarla literaturereviewofclinicaltestsforlumbarinstabilityinlowbackpainvalidityandapplicabilityinclinicalpractice