Accuracy of spinal orthopaedic tests: a systematic review.

Rob Simpson, Hugh Gemmell
{"title":"Accuracy of spinal orthopaedic tests: a systematic review.","authors":"Rob Simpson,&nbsp;Hugh Gemmell","doi":"10.1186/1746-1340-14-26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature on the accuracy of orthopaedic tests for the spine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple orthopaedic texts were reviewed to produce a comprehensive list of spine orthopaedic test names and synonyms. A search was conducted in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles from inception up to December 2005. The studies were evaluated using the tool for quality assessment for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one papers met the inclusion criteria. The QUADAS scores ranged from 4 to 12 of a possible 14. Twenty-nine percent of the studies achieved a score of 10 or more. The papers covered a wide range of tests for spine conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a lack of quantity and quality of orthopaedic tests for the spine found in the literature. There is a lack of high quality research regarding the accuracy of spinal orthopaedic tests. Due to this lack of evidence it is suggested that over-reliance on single orthopaedic tests is not appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":87173,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","volume":"14 ","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1746-1340-14-26","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature on the accuracy of orthopaedic tests for the spine.

Methods: Multiple orthopaedic texts were reviewed to produce a comprehensive list of spine orthopaedic test names and synonyms. A search was conducted in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles from inception up to December 2005. The studies were evaluated using the tool for quality assessment for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS).

Results: Twenty-one papers met the inclusion criteria. The QUADAS scores ranged from 4 to 12 of a possible 14. Twenty-nine percent of the studies achieved a score of 10 or more. The papers covered a wide range of tests for spine conditions.

Conclusion: There was a lack of quantity and quality of orthopaedic tests for the spine found in the literature. There is a lack of high quality research regarding the accuracy of spinal orthopaedic tests. Due to this lack of evidence it is suggested that over-reliance on single orthopaedic tests is not appropriate.

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
脊柱矫形试验的准确性:系统回顾。
背景:本系统综述的目的是对脊柱骨科试验准确性的文献进行批判性评价。方法:多种骨科文献进行审查,以产生脊柱骨科检查名称和同义词的综合列表。在MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, AMED和Cochrane Library中检索了从成立到2005年12月的相关文章。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具(QUADAS)对研究进行评估。结果:21篇论文符合纳入标准。QUADAS得分范围从4到12(满分14分)。29%的研究获得了10分或更高的分数。这些论文涵盖了脊柱状况的广泛测试。结论:文献中脊柱骨科检查的数量和质量均存在不足。关于脊柱矫形试验的准确性缺乏高质量的研究。由于缺乏证据,建议过度依赖单一矫形试验是不合适的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A longitudinal study of chiropractic use among older adults in the United States. Demographic survey of pediatric patients presenting to a chiropractic teaching clinic. Sports chiropractic management at the World Ice Hockey Championships. Interprofessional education through shadowing experiences in multi-disciplinary clinical settings. Could chiropractors screen for adverse drug events in the community? Survey of US chiropractors.
×
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