Suppr超能文献

与腰椎疼痛性疾病相关的诊断测试一般原则:对当前诊断技术的批判性评估

General principles of diagnostic testing as related to painful lumbar spine disorders: a critical appraisal of current diagnostic techniques.

作者信息

Saal Joel S

机构信息

SOAR, Physiatry Medical Group, Redwood City, California 94063, USA.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Nov 15;27(22):2538-45; discussion 2546. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00027.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

The literature on diagnostic tests available to the spine clinician for the evaluation of chronic low back pain was reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To review critically the available information and data on invasive diagnostic tests used for evaluation of chronic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Numerous published studies have described the technique and clinical results of diagnostic blocks for chronic low back pain. There are various methodologies, but most lack of an adequate "gold standard" with which to compare the results of the diagnostic test.

METHODS

The available published studies of diagnostic tests commonly used in the evaluation of chronic low back pain were reviewed, with a focus on invasive techniques. The techniques were evaluated on the basis of the data available to support the conclusions that could be drawn for each of these techniques. The principles of diagnostic testing, including specificity and sensitivity, were reviewed and applied in the context of the data available for each of these invasive tests.

RESULTS

The essential features the clinician seeks in a diagnostic test are accuracy, safety, and reproducibility. It is essential to have a gold standard with which to compare the accuracy of a given diagnostic test. There is no completely reliable gold standard with which to compare a diagnostic test (or injection) when the absence of pain is the end point. The clinical setting in which the test is used directly affects the test results. The prevalence of the disease therefore affects the meaningfulness of the test results. Imaging studies have their greatest value in the exclusion of other conditions. These studies alone were not adequate for predicting the patients who would respond to controlled diagnostic blocks of the facet joint. Facet joint diagnostic blockade probably is most accurately performed by median nerve branch block. The greatest specificity for a positive response to a facet denervation procedure is achieved when the diagnosis is established via highly controlled anesthetic blocks. Over the past few decades, the sacroiliac joint has received varying degrees of interest as an important pain generator of low back pain. Despite testimonials to the contrary, no diagnostic physical examination has correlated with sufficient specificity to diagnose this condition reliably from a clinical standpoint. Lumbar discography has been one of the single most controversial subjects in the management of degenerative, painful lumbar spine conditions. The specificity and sensitivity are high for the diagnosis of disc degeneration. The question that revolves around discography concerns the accuracy of this test for the diagnosis of discogenic pain. An integral part of the problem is the lack of an adequate gold standard. In a comparison of nerve root blockade, sciatic nerve block, posterior ramus block, and subcutaneous injection in a cohort of patients with sciatica, the sensitivity of nerve root block was very high, with only a moderate level of specificity. In the case of diagnostic selective nerve blocks used for evaluation of complex or protean nerve compression, surgical confirmation and clinical results should be a reliable gold standard. Conflicting results have been presented depending on the target lesion and method of study.

CONCLUSIONS

There are inherent limitations in the accuracy of all diagnostic tests. The tests used to diagnose the source of a patient's chronic low back pain require accurate determination of the abolition or reproduction of the patient's painful symptoms.

摘要

研究设计

回顾了脊柱临床医生可用于评估慢性下腰痛的诊断测试相关文献。

目的

严格审查用于评估慢性下腰痛的侵入性诊断测试的现有信息和数据。

背景信息总结

众多已发表的研究描述了慢性下腰痛诊断性阻滞的技术和临床结果。存在多种方法,但大多数缺乏适当的“金标准”来比较诊断测试的结果。

方法

回顾了常用于评估慢性下腰痛的诊断测试的现有已发表研究,重点关注侵入性技术。根据可获得的数据对这些技术进行评估,以支持针对每种技术得出的结论。回顾了诊断测试的原则,包括特异性和敏感性,并将其应用于这些侵入性测试各自可获得的数据背景中。

结果

临床医生在诊断测试中寻求的基本特征是准确性、安全性和可重复性。必须有一个金标准来比较给定诊断测试的准确性。当以疼痛消失为终点时,没有完全可靠的金标准来比较诊断测试(或注射)。测试所使用的临床环境直接影响测试结果。因此疾病的患病率影响测试结果的意义。影像学研究在排除其他病症方面具有最大价值。仅这些研究不足以预测对小关节控制诊断性阻滞有反应的患者。小关节诊断性阻滞可能通过正中神经分支阻滞最准确地进行。当通过高度控制的麻醉阻滞建立诊断时,对小关节去神经手术阳性反应的特异性最高。在过去几十年中,骶髂关节作为下腰痛的重要疼痛源受到了不同程度的关注。尽管有相反的证明,但从临床角度来看,没有任何诊断性体格检查具有足够的特异性来可靠地诊断这种病症。腰椎间盘造影一直是退行性、疼痛性腰椎疾病管理中最具争议的单一主题之一。其对椎间盘退变的诊断特异性和敏感性较高。围绕椎间盘造影的问题涉及该测试对盘源性疼痛诊断的准确性。问题的一个主要部分是缺乏适当的金标准。在一组坐骨神经痛患者中比较神经根阻滞、坐骨神经阻滞、后支阻滞和皮下注射时,神经根阻滞的敏感性非常高,但特异性仅为中等水平。在用于评估复杂或多变性神经受压的诊断性选择性神经阻滞的情况下,手术确认和临床结果应是可靠的金标准。根据目标病变和研究方法的不同,已呈现出相互矛盾的结果。

结论

所有诊断测试的准确性都存在固有局限性。用于诊断患者慢性下腰痛来源的测试需要准确确定患者疼痛症状的消除或再现。

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