Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Alar ligaments (1)
- clinical tests (1)
- validity – MRI (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (4)
Objectives
To develop a time-efficient motor control (MC) test battery while maximising diagnostic accuracy of both a two-level and three-level classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
Four private physiotherapy practices in northern Germany.
Participants
Consecutive males and females presenting to a physiotherapy clinic with non-specific LBP (n=65) were compared with 66 healthy-matched controls.
Primary outcome measures
Accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under the curve (AUC)) of a clinically driven consensus-based test battery including the ideal number of test items as well as threshold values and most accurate items.
Results
For both the two and three-level categorisation system, the ideal number of test items was 10. With increasing number of failed tests, the probability of having LBP increases. The overall discrimination potential for the two-level categorisation system of the test is good (AUC=0.85) with an optimal cut-off of three failed tests. The overall discrimination potential of the three-level categorisation system is fair (volume under the surface=0.52). The optimal cut-off for the 10-item test battery for categorisation into none, mild/moderate and severe MC impairment is three and six failed tests, respectively.
Conclusion
A 10-item test battery is recommended for both the two-level (impairment or not) and three-level (none, mild, moderate/severe) categorisation of patients with non-specific LBP.
Objective
To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT).
Methods
A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations.
Results
Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test.
Conclusion
After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.
Introduction
Tests to evaluate the integrity of the alar ligaments are important clinical tools for manual therapists, but there is limited research regarding their validity.
Method
A single blinded examiner assessed alar ligament integrity using the lateral shear test (LST), rotation stress test (RST) and side-bending stress test (SBST) on a sample of convenience comprising 7 subjects with MRI confirmed alar ligament lesions and 11 healthy people. Alar ligament lesions were identified using both supine and high-field strength upright MRI.
Results
The RST had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 69.2%. The SBST and the LST both showed a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 76.9%. In cases where all three tests were positive, the specificity increased to 84.6%.
Discussion
Tests of manual examination of alar ligament integrity have some diagnostic utility; however, these findings require further corroboration in a larger sample.