Suppr超能文献

骶髂关节的临床检查

Clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint.

作者信息

van der Wurff P, Meyne W, Hagmeijer R H

机构信息

Manual Therapist, Department of Physiotherapy, Military Rehabilitation Centre 'Aardenburg', Doorn, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Man Ther. 2000 May;5(2):89-96. doi: 10.1054/math.1999.0229.

Abstract

In the literature many tests are described which are designed to provoke pain or detect joint mobility in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). However, in part 1 of this review, the authors stated that there is little evidence of reliability of these tests. In this article, the authors describe the methodological review of 11 studies, which have dealt with the validity of SIJ tests. The methodological quality of the studies was tested by using a list of criteria that consisted of three categories: 1) study population, 2) test procedure and 3) test results. A weighting for each criterion was developed. The methodological score for the studies was, in general, disappointing and looked promising for only two out of 11 studies (58 and 64 points). Four authors drew conclusions of positive validity from the tests they studied but other authors did not confirm these results. The conclusion of this methodological review is that there is no evidence to support the inclusion of mobility and pain provocation tests for the SIJ in clinical practice. Three major problems have been identified in validating SIJ dysfunction tests. Firstly, poor reliability of SIJ dysfunction tests exists, which may be improved by multiple test scores as postulated in part 1 of this review. Secondly, the methodological quality of validity studies needs to be developed to a much higher level with special consideration paid to sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals and likelihood ratio values. And finally, there is a need for the proper use of a gold standard in assessing the validity of SIJ tests.

摘要

文献中描述了许多旨在引发疼痛或检测骶髂关节(SIJ)活动度的测试。然而,在本综述的第1部分中,作者指出几乎没有证据表明这些测试具有可靠性。在本文中,作者描述了对11项研究的方法学综述,这些研究涉及骶髂关节测试的有效性。通过使用由三类标准组成的清单来测试研究的方法学质量:1)研究人群,2)测试程序,3)测试结果。为每个标准制定了权重。总体而言,这些研究的方法学得分令人失望,11项研究中只有两项(分别为58分和64分)看起来有希望。四位作者从他们所研究的测试中得出了有效性为阳性的结论,但其他作者并未证实这些结果。该方法学综述的结论是,没有证据支持在临床实践中纳入骶髂关节活动度和疼痛激发测试。在验证骶髂关节功能障碍测试时发现了三个主要问题。首先,骶髂关节功能障碍测试的可靠性较差,如本综述第1部分所假设的,通过多个测试分数可能会有所改善。其次,有效性研究的方法学质量需要提高到更高水平,特别要考虑敏感性、特异性、置信区间和似然比值。最后,在评估骶髂关节测试的有效性时需要正确使用金标准。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验