Neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy: a scoping review.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Pub Date : 2025-04-05 DOI:10.1186/s12891-025-08560-9
Marzia Stella Yousif, Giuseppe Occhipinti, Filippo Bianchini, Daniel Feller, Annina B Schmid, Firas Mourad
{"title":"Neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy: a scoping review.","authors":"Marzia Stella Yousif, Giuseppe Occhipinti, Filippo Bianchini, Daniel Feller, Annina B Schmid, Firas Mourad","doi":"10.1186/s12891-025-08560-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To diagnose cervical radiculopathy according to the International Association for the Study of Pain definition, signs of neurological deficits must be examined with the neurological examination. However, the diagnostic accuracy of the standard neurological examination remains unclear, and no clear recommendations exist about standard components. Therefore, the objectives of this review are to map the research about the diagnostic accuracy, components, and performance of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinhal, DiTA databases were searched up to February 23rd, 2024. Additional studies were identified through screening reference lists of the included studies. Studies on neurological examination procedures and their diagnostic accuracy for cervical radiculopathy were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an initial 12,365 records, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were cross-sectional studies and compared the neurological examination with electrodiagnostic tests or magnetic resonance imaging. Reduced tendon reflexes were found to be most specific (81% (95% CI 69-89%) to 99% (95% CI not reported)), while somatosensation testing was least sensitive (25% (95% CI 12-38%; -LR 0.84) to 52% (95% CI 30-74%)). Taking all components into account resulted in higher specificity (98% (95% CI not reported) to 99% (95% CI 95-100%)) but lower sensitivity (7% (95% CI not reported) to 14% (95% CI 5-16%)) compared to electrodiagnostic tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found varying operational definitions of radiculopathy, suboptimal reference standards, and great heterogeneity in the neurological examination procedure and its diagnostic accuracy. Future research should address these issues to establish the clinical utility of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Protocol: </strong>https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.23290194 .</p>","PeriodicalId":9189,"journal":{"name":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"26 1","pages":"334"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11971784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08560-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To diagnose cervical radiculopathy according to the International Association for the Study of Pain definition, signs of neurological deficits must be examined with the neurological examination. However, the diagnostic accuracy of the standard neurological examination remains unclear, and no clear recommendations exist about standard components. Therefore, the objectives of this review are to map the research about the diagnostic accuracy, components, and performance of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy.

Method: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinhal, DiTA databases were searched up to February 23rd, 2024. Additional studies were identified through screening reference lists of the included studies. Studies on neurological examination procedures and their diagnostic accuracy for cervical radiculopathy were included.

Results: From an initial 12,365 records, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were cross-sectional studies and compared the neurological examination with electrodiagnostic tests or magnetic resonance imaging. Reduced tendon reflexes were found to be most specific (81% (95% CI 69-89%) to 99% (95% CI not reported)), while somatosensation testing was least sensitive (25% (95% CI 12-38%; -LR 0.84) to 52% (95% CI 30-74%)). Taking all components into account resulted in higher specificity (98% (95% CI not reported) to 99% (95% CI 95-100%)) but lower sensitivity (7% (95% CI not reported) to 14% (95% CI 5-16%)) compared to electrodiagnostic tests.

Conclusions: We found varying operational definitions of radiculopathy, suboptimal reference standards, and great heterogeneity in the neurological examination procedure and its diagnostic accuracy. Future research should address these issues to establish the clinical utility of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy.

Protocol: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.23290194 .

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
颈椎神经根病的神经学检查:范围回顾。
背景:根据国际疼痛研究协会的定义,要诊断颈椎病,必须通过神经系统检查发现神经功能缺损的迹象。然而,标准神经系统检查的诊断准确性仍不明确,也没有关于标准组成部分的明确建议。因此,本综述的目的是对颈椎病神经系统检查的诊断准确性、内容和表现进行研究:方法:检索了截至 2024 年 2 月 23 日的 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cinhal 和 DiTA 数据库。通过筛选纳入研究的参考文献目录,确定了其他研究。结果:在最初的 12,365 条记录中,有 6 篇文章符合纳入标准。所有文章均为横断面研究,并将神经系统检查与电诊断测试或磁共振成像进行了比较。研究发现,腱反射减弱的特异性最高(81% (95% CI 69-89%) 到 99% (95% CI 未报告)),而躯体感觉测试的敏感性最低(25% (95% CI 12-38%; -LR 0.84) 到 52% (95% CI 30-74%))。与电诊断测试相比,考虑到所有因素后,特异性更高(98%(95% CI 未报告)至 99%(95% CI 95-100%)),但敏感性较低(7%(95% CI 未报告)至 14%(95% CI 5-16%)):我们发现神经根病的操作定义各不相同、参考标准不理想、神经检查程序及其诊断准确性存在很大的异质性。未来的研究应解决这些问题,以确定颈椎病神经检查的临床实用性。协议:https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.23290194 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1017
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. The scope of the Journal covers research into rheumatic diseases where the primary focus relates specifically to a component(s) of the musculoskeletal system.
期刊最新文献
Clinical outcomes of subtalar arthroereisis in pediatric flatfoot with or without spring ligament repair. Osteoporosis documentation following hip fracture: a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary hospital. Optimizing osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis-induced kyphosis: anatomical insights and novel instrumentation. Finite element analysis of acromioclavicular joint stress in the treatment of Neer II distal clavicular fracture. The impact of peri-interventional factors on pain reduction in glenohumeral corticosteroid injections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1