Koppenhaver Shane L, Hebert Jeffrey J, Kawchuk Greg N, Childs John D, Teyhen Deydre S, Croy Theodore, Fritz Julie M
U.S. Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, San Antonio, TX, USA.
School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Man Ther. 2014 Dec;19(6):589-94. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.06.001. Epub 2014 Jun 12.
Assessment of spinal stiffness is widely used by manual therapy practitioners as a part of clinical diagnosis and treatment selection. Although studies have commonly found poor reliability of such procedures, conflicting evidence suggests that assessment of spinal stiffness may help predict response to specific treatments. The current study evaluated the criterion validity of manual assessments of spinal stiffness by comparing them to indentation measurements in patients with low back pain (LBP). As part of a standard examination, an experienced clinician assessed passive accessory spinal stiffness of the L3 vertebrae using posterior to anterior (PA) force on the spinous process of L3 in 50 subjects (54% female, mean (SD) age = 33.0 (12.8) years, BMI = 27.0 (6.0) kg/m(2)) with LBP. A criterion measure of spinal stiffness was performed using mechanized indentation by a blinded second examiner. Results indicated that manual assessments were uncorrelated to criterion measures of stiffness (spearman rho = 0.06, p = 0.67). Similarly, sensitivity and specificity estimates of judgments of hypomobility were low (0.20-0.45) and likelihood ratios were generally not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of judgments of hypermobility were not calculated due to limited prevalence. Additional analysis found that BMI explained 32% of the variance in the criterion measure of stiffness, yet failed to improve the relationship between assessments. Additional studies should investigate whether manual assessment of stiffness relates to other clinical and biomechanical constructs, such as symptom reproduction, angular rotation, quality of motion, or end feel.
脊柱僵硬程度评估被手法治疗从业者广泛用于临床诊断和治疗方案选择。尽管研究普遍发现此类评估方法的可靠性较差,但相互矛盾的证据表明,脊柱僵硬程度评估可能有助于预测对特定治疗的反应。本研究通过将脊柱僵硬程度的手法评估与腰痛(LBP)患者的压痕测量结果进行比较,评估了其标准效度。作为标准检查的一部分,一名经验丰富的临床医生对50名LBP患者(54%为女性,平均(标准差)年龄 = 33.0(12.8)岁,体重指数 = 27.0(6.0)kg/m²)的L3椎体棘突施加由后向前(PA)的力,评估其被动附属脊柱僵硬程度。由一名不知情的第二名检查者使用机械压痕法进行脊柱僵硬程度的标准测量。结果表明,手法评估与僵硬程度的标准测量结果不相关(斯皮尔曼相关系数 = 0.06,p = 0.67)。同样,活动度降低判断的敏感性和特异性估计值较低(0.20 - 0.45),似然比一般无统计学意义。由于患病率有限,未计算活动度增加判断的敏感性和特异性。进一步分析发现,体重指数解释了僵硬程度标准测量中32%的方差,但未能改善评估之间的关系。更多研究应调查脊柱僵硬程度的手法评估是否与其他临床和生物力学指标相关,如症状再现、角度旋转、运动质量或终末感觉。