School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance (ESEFID), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance (ESEFID), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021 May;44(4):307-318. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.01.001. Epub 2021 Apr 23.
The primary objective of this review was to investigate the reliability and validity of palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility. The secondary objective was to investigate which palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility exist in the literature.
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched. There was no restriction on the study design or participants. The data extracted from each study were sample size, study deign, and clinical test used. If there was information on reliability values, number of examiners, concurrent validity values, gold standard used, or inferential statistical test used, that was also extracted. For intraexaminer reliability, the data were expressed as κ values that were meta-analyzed using random effects.
Fifteen palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility were identified from 28 studies; 14 studies performed inferential statistical analysis, all including analysis of interexaminer reliability, with κ values ranging from -0.05 to 0.77. Analysis of intraexaminer reliability was performed in 8 studies, with κ values ranging from 0.08 to 0.73. No study included in this systematic review verified the concurrent validity of the tests. Our meta-analysis of intraexaminer reliability showed moderate to good agreement results for the Gillet test (κ = 0.46), the standing flexion test (κ = 0.61), and the sitting flexion test (κ = 0.68).
We found 15 palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility in this systematic review. According to our meta-analysis, only the sitting flexion test obtained a good and statistically significant intraexaminer agreement. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the reliability and validity of these tests.
本综述的主要目的是调查骶髂关节活动度触诊临床检查的可靠性和有效性。次要目的是调查文献中存在哪些骶髂关节活动度触诊临床检查。
检索了 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Medline 和 Physiotherapy Evidence Database。研究设计或参与者没有限制。从每项研究中提取的数据包括样本量、研究设计和使用的临床检查。如果有可靠性值、检查者数量、同时有效性值、使用的金标准或使用的推断统计检验信息，也将其提取出来。对于内部检查者可靠性，数据表示为κ 值，使用随机效应进行荟萃分析。
从 28 项研究中确定了 15 项骶髂关节活动度触诊临床检查；14 项研究进行了推断统计分析，均包括对检查者间可靠性的分析，κ 值范围从-0.05 到 0.77。8 项研究进行了内部检查者可靠性分析，κ 值范围从 0.08 到 0.73。没有一项纳入本系统评价的研究验证了这些检查的同时有效性。我们对内部检查者可靠性的荟萃分析显示，吉尔测试（κ=0.46）、站立前屈测试（κ=0.61）和坐姿前屈测试（κ=0.68）具有中度到良好的一致性结果。
我们在本系统评价中发现了 15 项骶髂关节活动度触诊临床检查。根据我们的荟萃分析，只有坐姿前屈测试获得了良好且具有统计学意义的内部检查者一致性。需要进一步的研究来评估这些测试的可靠性和有效性。
