Haas M, Peterson D, Panzer D, Rothman E H, Solomon S, Krein R, Johansen R
Research Department, Western States Chiropractic College, Portland, OR.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993 May;16(4):220-7.
A study was undertaken to assess the reliability of detecting leg alignment changes (reactivity) and to determine if the observed leg alignment reactivity can be attributed to a rotatory articular pressure challenge.
Prospective double-blind crossover trial of a diagnostic test.
Laboratory: Center for Technique Research.
Forty-two chiropractic college students, faculty and staff.
A standardized force of 2 or 3 kg was applied with a 1 cm2 rubber-tipped pressure algometer on the lateral aspect of the T3-T7 spinous processes and the posterior aspect of the lateral masses of C1.
Leg alignment reactivity: an increase in leg alignment discrepancy (yes or no) following a diagnostic intervention.
The reliability for detecting leg alignment reactivity was poor: on average, Kappa = 0.05 in the thoracics and 0.06 at C1. On average, the attributable risk of leg alignment reactivity (pressure test risk--sham test risk) was less than 4%. In many cases, the sham rate was greater than the pressure test rate.
For the population investigated, leg alignment reactivity to rotatory pressure testing can, in the majority of cases, be attributable to background noise. This procedure was not found to be viable for identifying vertebrae for adjustment. Further research with different subject populations, regions of investigation, leg alignment measurement techniques and vertebral challenge techniques are indicated.
进行一项研究以评估检测腿部对线变化(反应性)的可靠性,并确定观察到的腿部对线反应性是否可归因于旋转关节压力挑战。
诊断测试的前瞻性双盲交叉试验。
实验室:技术研究中心。
42名脊椎按摩疗法专业的大学生、教职员工。
使用面积为1平方厘米的橡胶头压力痛觉计,在T3 - T7棘突的外侧和C1侧块的后侧施加2或3千克的标准化力。
腿部对线反应性:诊断干预后腿部对线差异增加(是或否)。
检测腿部对线反应性的可靠性较差:平均而言,胸椎部位的卡帕值为0.05,C1部位为0.06。平均而言,腿部对线反应性的归因风险(压力测试风险 - 假测试风险)小于4%。在许多情况下,假测试率高于压力测试率。
对于所研究的人群,在大多数情况下,腿部对线对旋转压力测试的反应性可归因于背景噪声。未发现该程序对于确定需要调整的椎骨可行。建议针对不同的受试者群体、研究区域、腿部对线测量技术和椎体挑战技术进行进一步研究。