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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alfuth, Martin, Fichter, Patrick, Knicker, Axel
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