Reliability of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of knee disorders: Evidence from a systematic review

Simon Décary , Philippe Ouellet , Pascal-André Vendittoli , François Desmeules
{"title":"Reliability of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of knee disorders: Evidence from a systematic review","authors":"Simon Décary ,&nbsp;Philippe Ouellet ,&nbsp;Pascal-André Vendittoli ,&nbsp;François Desmeules","doi":"10.1016/j.math.2016.09.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Clinicians often rely on physical examination tests to guide them in the diagnostic process of knee disorders. However, reliability of these tests is often overlooked and may influence the consistency of results and overall diagnostic validity. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review evidence on the reliability of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of knee disorders. A structured literature search was conducted in databases up to January 2016. Included studies needed to report reliability measures of at least one physical test for any knee disorder. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QAREL checklist. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was performed. Thirty-three studies were included with a mean QAREL score of 5.5 ± 0.5. Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Thessaly test for meniscal injuries reached moderate inter-rater reliability (k = 0.54). Based on moderate to excellent quality evidence, the Lachman for anterior cruciate ligament injuries reached moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability (k = 0.42 to 0.81). Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Tibiofemoral Crepitus, Joint Line and Patellofemoral Pain/Tenderness, Bony Enlargement and Joint Pain on Movement tests for knee osteoarthritis reached fair to excellent inter-rater reliability (k = 0.29 to 0.93). Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Lateral Glide, Lateral Tilt, Lateral Pull and Quality of Movement tests for patellofemoral pain reached moderate to good inter-rater reliability (k = 0.49 to 0.73). Many physical tests appear to reach good inter-rater reliability, but this is based on low-quality and conflicting evidence. High-quality research is required to evaluate the reliability of knee physical examination tests.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49889,"journal":{"name":"Manual Therapy","volume":"26 ","pages":"Pages 172-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.math.2016.09.007","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manual Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1356689X16307184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Clinicians often rely on physical examination tests to guide them in the diagnostic process of knee disorders. However, reliability of these tests is often overlooked and may influence the consistency of results and overall diagnostic validity. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review evidence on the reliability of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of knee disorders. A structured literature search was conducted in databases up to January 2016. Included studies needed to report reliability measures of at least one physical test for any knee disorder. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QAREL checklist. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was performed. Thirty-three studies were included with a mean QAREL score of 5.5 ± 0.5. Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Thessaly test for meniscal injuries reached moderate inter-rater reliability (k = 0.54). Based on moderate to excellent quality evidence, the Lachman for anterior cruciate ligament injuries reached moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability (k = 0.42 to 0.81). Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Tibiofemoral Crepitus, Joint Line and Patellofemoral Pain/Tenderness, Bony Enlargement and Joint Pain on Movement tests for knee osteoarthritis reached fair to excellent inter-rater reliability (k = 0.29 to 0.93). Based on low to moderate quality evidence, the Lateral Glide, Lateral Tilt, Lateral Pull and Quality of Movement tests for patellofemoral pain reached moderate to good inter-rater reliability (k = 0.49 to 0.73). Many physical tests appear to reach good inter-rater reliability, but this is based on low-quality and conflicting evidence. High-quality research is required to evaluate the reliability of knee physical examination tests.

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
体格检查对膝关节疾病诊断的可靠性:来自系统评价的证据
临床医生通常依靠身体检查来指导他们诊断膝关节疾病。然而,这些测试的可靠性往往被忽视,并可能影响结果的一致性和整体诊断的有效性。因此,本研究的目的是系统地回顾体格检查对膝关节疾病诊断可靠性的证据。对截至2016年1月的数据库进行结构化文献检索。纳入的研究需要报告至少一项膝关节疾病体检的可靠性。使用QAREL检查表评估方法学质量。对证据进行了定性综合。纳入33项研究,平均QAREL评分为5.5±0.5。基于低到中等质量的证据,半月板损伤的Thessaly检验达到中等的量表间信度(k = 0.54)。基于中等到优异质量的证据,前交叉韧带损伤的Lachman达到了中等到优异的评分间信度(k = 0.42至0.81)。基于低质量到中等质量的证据,膝关节骨性关节炎的运动测试中,胫股肌萎缩、关节线和髌股疼痛/压痛、骨增大和关节疼痛达到了公平到优秀的评分间信度(k = 0.29至0.93)。基于低到中等质量的证据,髌股疼痛的侧滑动、侧倾斜、侧牵拉和运动质量测试达到了中等到良好的评分间信度(k = 0.49至0.73)。许多物理测试似乎达到了良好的评分者之间的可靠性,但这是基于低质量和相互矛盾的证据。评估膝关节体检结果的可靠性需要高质量的研究。
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
Manual Therapy
Manual Therapy 医学-康复医学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Osteopathic correction of arterial hypertension in hypertensive patients with anxiety syndrome Assessing the agreement between specialists in ultrasound diagnostics of degenerative changes in the L5-S1 intervertebral disc Modern aspects of diagnostics and treatment of circulatory disorders in the vertebrobasilar system The evolutionofconcepts of autonomic dysfunction (a review) The rationale for the use of osteopathic correction in patients with nasal breathing disorders
×
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:481959085
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