Cooperstein Robert
Professor, Coordinator of Research and Technique, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer Chiropractic College West, San Jose, CA.
J Chiropr Med. 2012 Sep;11(3):154-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2012.06.001.
The purpose of this study is to perform a secondary analysis using modified methods of previously reported data to analyze the amount of examiner concordance in the Johnston and Friedman percussion scan of the most fixated spinal level.
A 2001 study evaluated interexaminer reliability of the percussive method of Johnston and Friedman for detecting altered segmental mobility (somatic dysfunction, spinal/segmental dysfunction, or chiropractic subluxation) in the thoracic spine. The original reported level of agreement using the κ statistic for discrete measures was only 0.07, judged "slight." The data were reformatted to permit recalculating the degree of interexaminer agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient statistic, which uses continuous analysis, unlike κ that performs discrete analysis. Following an initial calculation, the data were modified to reflect the caudally increasing vertebral height of the thoracic vertebrae.
The reformatted and modified data, intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) = 0.253 (0.100,0.482), showed the findings as "poor," which is better interexaminer agreement for percussion motion palpation than the original reported κ value judged as "slight."
Reanalyzing the data using an alternative statistical method showed greater interexaminer reliability than was originally reported. This secondary analysis demonstrates how study results may vary depending on the experimental design and statistical methods chosen for analysis.
本研究旨在使用先前报告数据的改良方法进行二次分析,以分析在约翰斯顿和弗里德曼叩诊扫描中最固定脊柱节段的检查者一致性程度。
一项2001年的研究评估了约翰斯顿和弗里德曼叩诊法在检测胸椎节段活动度改变(躯体功能障碍、脊柱/节段功能障碍或脊椎半脱位)方面的检查者间可靠性。最初报告的使用κ统计量进行离散测量的一致性水平仅为0.07,判定为“轻微”。对数据进行重新格式化,以便使用组内相关系数统计量重新计算检查者间的一致程度,该统计量使用连续分析,与进行离散分析的κ不同。在初步计算后,对数据进行修改以反映胸椎椎体高度从尾端向上增加的情况。
重新格式化和修改后的数据,组内相关系数(2,1)= 0.253(0.100,0.482),显示结果为“较差”,这表明叩诊运动触诊的检查者间一致性比最初报告的判定为“轻微”的κ值要好。
使用替代统计方法重新分析数据显示,检查者间可靠性比最初报告的更高。这项二次分析表明,研究结果可能会因所选择的实验设计和统计分析方法而有所不同。