Literature DB >> 11935120

Interexaminer reliability of low back pain assessment using the McKenzie method.

Sinikka Kilpikoski1, Olavi Airaksinen, Markku Kankaanpää, Päivi Leminen, Tapio Videman, Markku Alen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A test-retest design was used.
OBJECTIVE: To assess interexaminer reliability of the McKenzie method for performing clinical tests and classifying patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical methods and tests classifying patients with nonspecific low back pain have been based mainly on symptom duration or extent of pain referral. The McKenzie mechanical diagnostic and classification approach is a widely used noninvasive, low-technology method of assessing patients with low back pain. However, little is known about the interexaminer reliability of the method, previous studies having yielded conflicting results.
METHODS: For this study, 39 volunteers with low back pain, mean age 40 years (range, 24-55 years), were blindly assessed by two physical therapists trained in the McKenzie method. The variability of two examiners for binary decisions was expressed by the kappa coefficient, and by the proportion of observed agreement, as calculated from a 2 x 2 contingency table of concordance.
RESULTS: On the basis of pure observation alone, agreement among clinical tests on the presence and direction of lateral shift was 77% (kappa = 0.2; P < 0.248) and 79% (kappa = 0.4; P < 0.003), respectively. Agreement on the relevance of lateral shift and the lateral component according to symptom responses was 85% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.000) and 92% (kappa= 0.4; P < 0.021), respectively. Using the repeated movements and static end-range loading strategy to define the centralization phenomenon and directional preference, agreement was 95% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.002) and 90% (kappa = 0.9; P < 0.000), respectively. When patients with low back pain were classified into the McKenzie main syndromes and into specific subgroups, agreement was 95% (kappa = 0.6; P < 0.000) and 74% (kappa = 0.7; P < 0.000), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Interexaminer reliability of the McKenzie lumbar spine assessment in performing clinical tests and classifying patients with low back pain into syndromes were good and statistically significant when the examiners had been trained in the McKenzie method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11935120     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200204150-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  49 in total

1.  Disentangling classification systems from their individual categories and the category-specific criteria: an essential consideration to evaluate clinical utility.

Authors:  Julie Fritz
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2010-12

2.  Letter to the editor on: Hanna B. Albert, Eva Hauge, Claus Manniche (2011) Centralization in patients with sciatica: are pain responses to repeated movement and positioning associated with outcome or types of disc lesions? Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2018-9.

Authors:  Georg Supp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Classification-based approach for management of an adolescent with LBP, lower extremity pain, and a relevant postural deformity.

Authors:  Jason Dudzic; Brett Szymusiak; Hannah McCormick; Eric R Miller
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2011-02

4.  Inter-examiner reliability in the assessment of low back pain (LBP) using the Kirkaldy-Willis classification (KWC).

Authors:  Bo C Bertilson; Johan Bring; Anneli Sjöblom; Karin Sundell; Lars-Erik Strender
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Subclassification of low back pain: a cross-country comparison.

Authors:  Evdokia V Billis; Christopher J McCarthy; Jacqueline A Oldham
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Manual correction of an acute lumbar lateral shift: maintenance of correction and rehabilitation: a case report with video.

Authors:  Mark Laslett
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

7.  Predictors of clinical outcome following lumbar disc surgery: the value of historical, physical examination, and muscle function variables.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Hebert; Julie M Fritz; Shane L Koppenhaver; Anne Thackeray; Per Kjaer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Inter-examiner reliability of diplomats in the mechanical diagnosis and therapy system in assessing patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Afshin Heidar Abady; Richard Rosedale; Tom J Overend; Bert M Chesworth; Michael A Rotondi
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2014-11

9.  A prospective study of patients with shoulder pain and Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT).

Authors:  Richard Yarznbowicz
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-01-24

Review 10.  Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

Authors:  Scott D Tagliaferri; Maia Angelova; Xiaohui Zhao; Patrick J Owen; Clint T Miller; Tim Wilkin; Daniel L Belavy
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-07-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.