Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
PROMISE Lab, IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Phys Ther. 2022 Jul 4;102(7). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac054.
Among the tests designed to evaluate neck neuromuscular function, the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) assesses the function of the deep cervical flexor muscles (DCFs). The purpose of this study was to conduct a review and meta-analysis of published articles about all measurement properties of the different CCFT versions (CCFT Activation Score [CCFT-AS], CCFT Performance Index [CCFT-PI], CCFT Cumulative Performance Index [CCFT-CPI], and CCFT alternative procedures for measuring activation level (CCFT1) or endurance (CCFT2) in people who were asymptomatic and people with nonspecific neck pain.
PubMed Central, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 30, 2020. Studies were selected if they reported data on reliability, validity, and/or responsiveness of the CCFT in adults who were asymptomatic or who had nonspecific neck pain. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted quality assessment, and extracted the results. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model.
Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The rating of interrater reliability (assessed for CCFT-AS and CCFT-CPI) was positive only for using the test at a group level. The same rating was ascribed to the intrarater reliability of CCFT-AS, CCFT1, and CCFT2, whereas CCFT-PI and CCFT-CPI showed positive intrarater reliability for assessment of individuals as well. CCFT validity was rated as positive for expressly assessing DCF action when measuring DCF activation through electromyography-not through ultrasonography-or craniocervical flexion motion as well as for differentiating patients who were asymptomatic and patients who had nonspecific neck pain (only the AS version). CCFT validity was rated as negative for investigating the CCFT performance correlation with the severity of nonspecific neck pain. CCFT responsiveness was rated as negative.
The CCFT is a potentially useful tool for detecting impairment in DCF control and identifying patients who have nonspecific neck pain and who would benefit from a targeted intervention. However, the limited reliability affects its suitability for that purpose. Further research on the reliability of different CCFT versions in which the raters are thoroughly trained is strongly recommended.
The CCFT might help to detect impairment in DCF control and identify patients who have nonspecific neck pain and who would benefit from a targeted intervention. However, the poor reliability of most versions of the test greatly limits its application in clinical practice. Only CCFT-PI and CCFT-CPI seem reliable enough to help in clinical decision-making at the individual level.
在评估颈部神经肌肉功能的测试中,颅颈屈曲测试(CCFT)评估了深层颈屈肌(DCF)的功能。本研究的目的是对不同 CCFT 版本(CCFT 激活评分 [CCFT-AS]、CCFT 表现指数 [CCFT-PI]、CCFT 累积表现指数 [CCFT-CPI]和 CCFT 用于测量激活水平的替代方法 [CCFT1] 或耐力 [CCFT2])的所有测量特性进行综述和荟萃分析,这些版本适用于无症状和非特异性颈部疼痛的人群。
从建库到 2020 年 6 月 30 日,我们在 PubMed Central、MEDLINE、CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 中进行了检索。如果研究报告了 CCFT 在无症状成年人或非特异性颈部疼痛成年人中的可靠性、有效性和/或反应性数据,则选择这些研究。两位审查员独立选择研究、进行质量评估和提取结果。所有荟萃分析均采用随机效应模型。
21 项研究符合纳入标准。仅在以群体水平使用测试时,测试者间可靠性(用于 CCFT-AS 和 CCFT-CPI)的评分才为阳性。CCFT-AS、CCFT1 和 CCFT2 的同一种评分也适用于测试者内可靠性,而 CCFT-PI 和 CCFT-CPI 则适用于评估个体的可靠性。CCFT 有效性的评分标准为,通过肌电图而非超声或颅颈屈曲运动来明确评估 DCF 动作时,用于评估 DCF 激活的 CCFT 为阳性,此外,当区分无症状患者和非特异性颈部疼痛患者时,CCFT 也是有效的(仅 AS 版本)。CCFT 有效性的评分标准为阴性,因为研究没有调查 CCFT 性能与非特异性颈部疼痛严重程度的相关性。CCFT 反应性的评分标准为阴性。
CCFT 可能是一种有用的工具,可用于检测 DCF 控制受损情况,并识别出患有非特异性颈部疼痛且可能受益于针对性干预的患者。然而,有限的可靠性会影响其在这方面的适用性。强烈建议对经过充分培训的测试者进行不同 CCFT 版本的可靠性进行进一步研究。
CCFT 可能有助于检测 DCF 控制受损情况,并识别出患有非特异性颈部疼痛且可能受益于针对性干预的患者。然而,该测试的大多数版本的可靠性都很差,极大地限制了其在临床实践中的应用。只有 CCFT-PI 和 CCFT-CPI 似乎足够可靠,可以帮助在个体层面上做出临床决策。