Division of Physiotherapy, The Neck Pain and Whiplash Research Unit, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia.
Division of Physiotherapy, The Neck Pain and Whiplash Research Unit, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.
Phys Ther. 2020 Jan 23;100(1):192-200. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz143.
The clinical diagnosis of cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) is challenging because of a lack of sensitive and specific diagnostic tests. It is vital for clinicians to know normative responses to suggested clinical tests to help them develop the method and interpretation of these tests and maximize their diagnostic value for CGD.
The purpose of the study was to determine normative responses to the clinical application of the cervical torsion test and the head-neck differentiation test, with consideration of different age groups and sex.
This was an observational study.
One hundred forty-seven people who were healthy and asymptomatic served as controls and performed both tests, which involved 3 components: cervical torsion, cervical rotation, and en bloc rotation (head and trunk rotation together).
Thirty-five (23.81%) of the 147 participants reported some symptoms (mild dizziness, visual disturbances, unusual eye movements on opening eyes after the test, motion sickness, or nausea) on 1 or more of the 3 test components in either test. The specificity when using a positive response to torsion alone (ie, a negative response to the rotation or en bloc component) was high (for the cervical torsion test, 98.64%; for the head-neck differentiation test, 89.8%), as participants with likely global sensorimotor sensitivity were eliminated. The combined specificity was 100%, as no participants presented with exclusive positive torsion results in both tests. Age and sex did not influence the results.
There were several examiners who were not blinded.
Confirmation of the high specificity of these clinical tests with the method used in this study to conduct and interpret the results will allow future research to determine the sensitivity of these clinical measures in a population with CGD and specificity in those with dizziness of other origins.
由于缺乏敏感和特异的诊断性检查,颈源性头晕(CGD)的临床诊断颇具挑战。临床医生了解针对建议性临床检查的正常反应对于帮助他们制定这些检查的方法和解释,并最大限度地提高 CGD 的诊断价值至关重要。
本研究旨在确定颈椎扭转试验和头-颈区分试验的临床应用的正常反应,并考虑不同年龄组和性别。
这是一项观察性研究。
147 名健康无症状的个体作为对照进行了这两项检查,包括 3 个部分:颈椎扭转、颈椎旋转和整块旋转(头和躯干一起旋转)。
35 名(23.81%)参与者在这两项检查的 1 个或多个测试组件中报告了一些症状(轻度头晕、视力障碍、测试后睁眼时出现异常眼球运动、运动病或恶心)。单独使用扭转反应(即旋转或整块组件为阴性)的特异性很高(颈椎扭转试验为 98.64%;头-颈区分试验为 89.8%),因为可能存在全身感觉运动敏感性的参与者被排除。联合特异性为 100%,因为在两项检查中都没有参与者出现单纯的阳性扭转结果。年龄和性别没有影响结果。
有几位检查者没有设盲。
使用本研究中进行和解释结果的方法证实这些临床检查具有高特异性,将允许未来的研究确定这些临床措施在 CGD 人群中的敏感性和在其他来源头晕人群中的特异性。