Suppr超能文献

斯伯林试验-临床实践中的不一致性。

Spurling's test - inconsistencies in clinical practice.

机构信息

Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, University of Kentucky , Lexington, KY, USA.

出版信息

J Man Manip Ther. 2021 Feb;29(1):23-32. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1762526. Epub 2020 Jun 30.

Abstract

: The purpose of this study was to investigate the methodology, interpretation, and perceived value of Spurling's test toward diagnosis/classification and treatment. : An anonymous web-based survey was made available to physical therapist members of the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. Based on video demonstrations of technique and symptom distribution, questions included preferred method, criteria for test interpretation, and perceived value of Spurling's test and other examination findings toward clinical decision-making. Professional profile data were also collected. : Among the 452 participants completing the survey, no method of testing was preferred by more than 37%, with ipsilateral lateral flexion, rotation, and extension with compression being most frequently preferred followed by ipsilateral lateral flexion with compression at 32%. Proximal provocation of symptoms only without distal symptoms was interpreted as a positive test by 67%. Participants rated Spurling's test of moderate to low value toward diagnosis/classification and treatment. : Inconsistency with methodology and interpretation of Spurling's test is suggested to be pervasive in physical therapist practice. While an optimal test methodology has yet to be identified, result interpretation does have a basis for clarification toward diagnosis/classification and reduction of unwanted variance in practice.

摘要

本研究旨在探讨 Spurling 试验在诊断/分类和治疗中的方法学、解释和感知价值。一项针对美国物理治疗协会骨科物理治疗学院成员的匿名网络调查提供了基于技术和症状分布的视频演示,问题包括首选方法、测试解释标准以及 Spurling 测试和其他检查结果对临床决策的感知价值。还收集了专业资料数据。在完成调查的 452 名参与者中,没有一种测试方法的首选率超过 37%,同侧侧屈、旋转和伸展加压迫最常被首选,其次是同侧侧屈加压迫为 32%。仅近端引发症状而无远端症状被解释为阳性测试的占 67%。参与者认为 Spurling 试验对诊断/分类和治疗的价值中等偏低。表明 Spurling 试验的方法学和解释在物理治疗师实践中普遍存在不一致。虽然尚未确定最佳测试方法,但结果解释确实为诊断/分类提供了依据,并减少了实践中的不必要差异。

相似文献

1
Spurling's test - inconsistencies in clinical practice.斯伯林试验-临床实践中的不一致性。
J Man Manip Ther. 2021 Feb;29(1):23-32. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1762526. Epub 2020 Jun 30.
9
Neck pain with radiculopathy: A systematic review of classification systems.神经根病性颈痛的分类系统:系统评价。
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021 Aug;54:102389. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102389. Epub 2021 May 6.
10
Cervical radiculopathy.神经根型颈椎病
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Mar;75(3):342-52. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90040-x.

本文引用的文献

2
Electrodiagnosis of radiculopathy.神经根病的电诊断
Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;161:305-316. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-64142-7.00056-4.
6
Comparison of Symptoms From C6 and C7 Radiculopathy.C6 和 C7 神经根病变症状的比较。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Oct 15;42(20):1545-1551. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002353.
7
Neck Pain: Revision 2017.颈部疼痛:2017 年修订版。
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Jul;47(7):A1-A83. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0302.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验