Cargando…
Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice
BACKGROUND: A variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments an...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8687568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261457 |
_version_ | 1784618199475552256 |
---|---|
author | Alfuth, Martin Fichter, Patrick Knicker, Axel |
author_facet | Alfuth, Martin Fichter, Patrick Knicker, Axel |
author_sort | Alfuth, Martin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments and imaging diagnostics for the determination of LLD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases Medline (PubMed) and Index to Chiropractic Literature were systematically searched. Studies regarding clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics for the diagnosis of LLD, which reported the clinimetric properties for assessment of LLD, were included and screened for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool for validity studies and the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) tool for reliability studies. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles on clinical assessments and 15 studies on imaging diagnostics met the eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies on the validity of clinical assessments and six studies on the validity of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability for all domains. One study on the reliability of clinical assessments and one study on the reliability of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias. Main limitations were, that an analysis of sensitivity and specificity was only performed in a few studies and that a valid reference standard was lacking in numerous studies on clinical assessments. CONCLUSIONS: For the clinical assessment of LLD, the block test appears to be the most useful method. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiography seems to be the most valid and reliable method and may be used as global reference standard to measure the anatomic LLD when comparing clinical methods and imaging diagnostics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8687568 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86875682021-12-21 Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice Alfuth, Martin Fichter, Patrick Knicker, Axel PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: A variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments and imaging diagnostics for the determination of LLD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases Medline (PubMed) and Index to Chiropractic Literature were systematically searched. Studies regarding clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics for the diagnosis of LLD, which reported the clinimetric properties for assessment of LLD, were included and screened for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool for validity studies and the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) tool for reliability studies. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles on clinical assessments and 15 studies on imaging diagnostics met the eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies on the validity of clinical assessments and six studies on the validity of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability for all domains. One study on the reliability of clinical assessments and one study on the reliability of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias. Main limitations were, that an analysis of sensitivity and specificity was only performed in a few studies and that a valid reference standard was lacking in numerous studies on clinical assessments. CONCLUSIONS: For the clinical assessment of LLD, the block test appears to be the most useful method. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiography seems to be the most valid and reliable method and may be used as global reference standard to measure the anatomic LLD when comparing clinical methods and imaging diagnostics. Public Library of Science 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8687568/ /pubmed/34928991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261457 Text en © 2021 Alfuth et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Alfuth, Martin Fichter, Patrick Knicker, Axel Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title | Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title_full | Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title_fullStr | Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title_short | Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
title_sort | leg length discrepancy: a systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8687568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261457 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alfuthmartin leglengthdiscrepancyasystematicreviewonthevalidityandreliabilityofclinicalassessmentsandimagingdiagnosticsusedinclinicalpractice AT fichterpatrick leglengthdiscrepancyasystematicreviewonthevalidityandreliabilityofclinicalassessmentsandimagingdiagnosticsusedinclinicalpractice AT knickeraxel leglengthdiscrepancyasystematicreviewonthevalidityandreliabilityofclinicalassessmentsandimagingdiagnosticsusedinclinicalpractice |