Jonsson Anders, Rasmussen-Barr Eva
a Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation/Physiotherapy , Umeå University , Umeå , Sweden.
b Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology Care Scinces and society , Division of Physiotherapy , Huddinge , Sweden.
Physiother Theory Pract. 2018 Mar;34(3):165-180. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1390806. Epub 2017 Nov 7.
Neck pain is common and often becomes chronic. Various clinical tests of the cervical spine are used to direct and evaluate treatment. This systematic review aimed to identify studies examining the intra- and/or interrater reliability of tests used in clinical examination of patients with neck pain. A database search up to April 2016 was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and AMED. The Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies Checklist (QAREL) was used to assess risk of bias. Eleven studies were included, comprising tests of active and passive movement and pain evaluating participants with ongoing neck pain. One study was assessed with a low risk of bias, three with medium risk, while the rest were assessed with high risk of bias. The results showed differing reliabilities for the included tests ranging from poor to almost perfect. In conclusion, active movement and pain for pain or mobility overall presented acceptable to very good reliability (Kappa >0.40); while passive intervertebral tests had lower Kappa values, suggesting poor reliability. It may be a coincidence that the studies indicating very good reliability tended to be of higher quality (low to moderate risk of bias), while studies finding poor reliability tended to be of lower quality (high risk of bias). Regardless, the current recommendation from this review would suggest the clinical use of tests with acceptable reliability and avoiding the use of tests that have been shown to not be reliable. Finally, it is critical that all future reliability studies are of higher quality with low risk of bias.
颈部疼痛很常见,且常常会发展为慢性疼痛。颈椎的各种临床检查用于指导和评估治疗。本系统评价旨在识别有关颈部疼痛患者临床检查中所使用检查的内部和/或检查者间可靠性的研究。截至2016年4月,在PubMed、CINAHL和AME D数据库中进行了检索。使用可靠性研究质量评估清单(QAREL)来评估偏倚风险。纳入了11项研究,包括主动和被动运动测试以及对患有持续性颈部疼痛参与者的疼痛评估。1项研究被评估为低偏倚风险,3项为中等偏倚风险,其余的被评估为高偏倚风险。结果显示,纳入的检查可靠性各不相同,从差到几乎完美。总之,主动运动和疼痛评估在总体疼痛或活动度方面表现出可接受至非常好的可靠性(Kappa>0.40);而被动椎间检查的Kappa值较低,表明可靠性较差。表明非常好可靠性的研究往往质量较高(低至中度偏倚风险),而发现可靠性差的研究往往质量较低(高偏倚风险),这可能只是巧合。无论如何,本评价目前的建议是,临床应使用具有可接受可靠性的检查,避免使用已被证明不可靠的检查。最后,至关重要的是,所有未来的可靠性研究都应具有更高的质量和低偏倚风险。