• Spine J · Jan 2007

    Comparative Study

    The validity of manual examination in assessing patients with neck pain.

    • Wade King, Peter Lau, Richard Lees, and Nikolai Bogduk.
    • Department of Clinical Research, Royal Newcastle Hospital, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle NSW 2300, Australia.
    • Spine J. 2007 Jan 1;7(1):22-6.

    Background ContextAlthough manual therapists believe that they can diagnose symptomatic joints in the neck by manual examination, that conviction is based on only one study. That study claimed that manual examination of the neck had 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for diagnosing painful zygapophyseal joints. However, the study indicated that its results should be reproduced before they could be generalized.PurposeThe present study was undertaken to answer the call for replication studies. The objective was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio of manual examination for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain.Study DesignThe study was conducted in a private practice located in a rural town. The practice specialized in musculoskeletal pain problems.Patient SampleThe study sample was 173 patients with neck pain in whom cervical zygapophyseal joint pain was suspected on clinical examination, and who were willing to undergo controlled diagnostic blocks of the suspected joint or joints.Outcome MeasuresThe validity of manual diagnosis was determined by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio.MethodsPatients who exhibited the putatively diagnostic physical signs of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain were referred to a radiologist who performed controlled, diagnostic blocks of the suspected joint, and other joints if indicated. The results of the blocks constituted the criterion standard, against which the clinical diagnosis was compared, by creating contingency tables.ResultsManual examination had a high sensitivity for cervical zygapophyseal joint pain, at the segmental levels commonly symptomatic, but its specificity was poor. Likelihood ratios barely greater than 1.0 indicated that manual examination lacked validity. Although the results obtained were less favorable than those of the previous study, paradoxically they were statistically not different.ConclusionsThe present study found manual examination of the cervical spine to lack validity for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. It refutes the conclusion of the one previous study. The paradoxical lack of statistical difference between the two studies is accounted for by the small sample size of the previous study.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.