Wrobel James S, Armstrong David G
Scholl's Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Chicago, IL 60064, USA.
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008 May-Jun;98(3):197-206. doi: 10.7547/0980197.
This literature review was undertaken to evaluate the reliability and validity of the orthopedic, neurologic, and vascular examination of the foot and ankle.
We searched PubMed-the US National Library of Medicine's database of biomedical citations-and abstracts for relevant publications from 1966 to 2006. We also searched the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. We identified 35 articles to review. For discussion purposes, we used reliability interpretation guidelines proposed by others. For the kappa statistic that calculates reliability for dichotomous (eg, yes or no) measures, reliability was defined as moderate (0.4-0.6), substantial (0.6-0.8), and outstanding (> 0.8). For the intraclass correlation coefficient that calculates reliability for continuous (eg, degrees of motion) measures, reliability was defined as good (> 0.75), moderate (0.5-0.75), and poor (< 0.5).
Intraclass correlations, based on the various examinations performed, varied widely. The range was from 0.08 to 0.98, depending on the examination performed. Concurrent and predictive validity ranged from poor to good.
Although hundreds of articles exist describing various methods of lower-extremity assessment, few rigorously assess the measurement properties. This information can be used both by the discerning clinician in the art of clinical examination and by the scientist in the measurement properties of reproducibility and validity.
进行这项文献综述以评估足踝部骨科、神经科和血管检查的可靠性和有效性。
我们检索了美国国立医学图书馆的生物医学文献数据库PubMed以及相关出版物的摘要,时间跨度为1966年至2006年。我们还检索了所检索文章的参考文献。我们确定了35篇文章进行综述。为便于讨论,我们采用了他人提出的可靠性解释指南。对于计算二分法(如“是”或“否”)测量可靠性的kappa统计量,可靠性定义为中等(0.4 - 0.6)、较高(0.6 - 0.8)和出色(> 0.8)。对于计算连续(如运动度数)测量可靠性的组内相关系数,可靠性定义为良好(> 0.75)、中等(0.5 - 0.75)和较差(< 0.5)。
基于所进行的各种检查,组内相关性差异很大。范围从0.08到0.98,具体取决于所进行的检查。同时效度和预测效度从差到好不等。
尽管有数百篇文章描述了下肢评估的各种方法,但很少有文章严格评估测量特性。这些信息可供临床检查领域有洞察力的临床医生以及研究再现性和效度测量特性的科学家使用。