Jeffrey J Hebert1, Shane L Koppenhaver2, Deydre S Teyhen3, Bruce F Walker4, Julie M Fritz5. 1. School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: J.Hebert@Murdoch.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; US Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, 3599 Scott Rd, San Antonio, TX, USA. 3. US Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, 3599 Scott Rd, San Antonio, TX, USA; Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, US Army Medical Research and Material Command, Bldg. 1054 Patchel St, Fort Detrick, MD 21702, USA. 4. School of Health Professions, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Utah and Intermountain Healthcare, 250 S. 1850 E, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The lumbar multifidus muscle provides an important contribution to lumbar spine stability, and the restoration of lumbar multifidus function is a frequent goal of rehabilitation. Currently, there are no reliable and valid physical examination procedures available to assess lumbar multifidus function among patients with low back pain. PURPOSE: To examine the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the multifidus lift test (MLT) to identify lumbar multifidus dysfunction among patients with low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of reliability and concurrent validity performed in a university outpatient research facility. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-two persons aged 18 to 60 years with current low back pain and a minimum modified Oswestry disability score of 20%. Study participants were excluded if they reported a history of lumbar spine surgery, lumbar radiculopathy, medical red flags, osteoporosis, or had recently been treated with spinal manipulation or trunk stabilization exercises. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concurrent measures of lumbar multifidus muscle function at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels were obtained with the MLT (index test) and real-time ultrasound imaging (reference standard). METHODS: The inter-rater reliability of the MLT was examined by measuring the level of agreement between two blinded examiners. Concurrent validity of the MLT was investigated by comparing clinicians' judgments with real-time ultrasound imaging measures of lumbar multifidus function. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of the MLT was substantial to excellent (κ=0.75 to 0.81, p≤.01) and free from errors of bias and prevalence. When performed at L4-L5 or L5-S1, the MLT demonstrated evidence of concurrent validity through its relationship with the reference standard results at L4-L5 (rbis=0.59-0.73, p≤.01). The MLT generally failed to demonstrate a relationship with the reference standard results from the L5-S1 level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the MLT to assess lumbar multifidus function at the L4-L5 spinal level. Additional research examining the measurement properties and utility of this test should be undertaken before confident implementation with patients.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The lumbar multifidus muscle provides an important contribution to lumbar spine stability, and the restoration of lumbar multifidus function is a frequent goal of rehabilitation. Currently, there are no reliable and valid physical examination procedures available to assess lumbar multifidus function among patients with low back pain. PURPOSE: To examine the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the multifidus lift test (MLT) to identify lumbar multifidus dysfunction among patients with low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of reliability and concurrent validity performed in a university outpatient research facility. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-two persons aged 18 to 60 years with current low back pain and a minimum modified Oswestry disability score of 20%. Study participants were excluded if they reported a history of lumbar spine surgery, lumbar radiculopathy, medical red flags, osteoporosis, or had recently been treated with spinal manipulation or trunk stabilization exercises. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concurrent measures of lumbar multifidus muscle function at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels were obtained with the MLT (index test) and real-time ultrasound imaging (reference standard). METHODS: The inter-rater reliability of the MLT was examined by measuring the level of agreement between two blinded examiners. Concurrent validity of the MLT was investigated by comparing clinicians' judgments with real-time ultrasound imaging measures of lumbar multifidus function. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of the MLT was substantial to excellent (κ=0.75 to 0.81, p≤.01) and free from errors of bias and prevalence. When performed at L4-L5 or L5-S1, the MLT demonstrated evidence of concurrent validity through its relationship with the reference standard results at L4-L5 (rbis=0.59-0.73, p≤.01). The MLT generally failed to demonstrate a relationship with the reference standard results from the L5-S1 level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the MLT to assess lumbar multifidus function at the L4-L5 spinal level. Additional research examining the measurement properties and utility of this test should be undertaken before confident implementation with patients.
Authors: Shane L Koppenhaver; Eric C Parent; Deydre S Teyhen; Jeffrey J Hebert; Julie M Fritz Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Julie M Fritz; Shane L Koppenhaver; Gregory N Kawchuk; Deydre S Teyhen; Jeffrey J Hebert; John D Childs Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bernard Mengiardi; Marius R Schmid; Norbert Boos; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Florian Brunner; Achim Elfering; Juerg Hodler Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shane L Koppenhaver; Julie M Fritz; Jeffrey J Hebert; Greg N Kawchuk; John D Childs; Eric C Parent; Norman W Gill; Deydre S Teyhen Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Karen T Snider; James W Kribs; Eric J Snider; Brian F Degenhardt; Allison Bukowski; Jane C Johnson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Krishnan Chakravarthy; David Lee; Jennifer Tram; Samir Sheth; Robert Heros; Smith Manion; Vikas Patel; Kyle Kiesel; Yousef Ghandour; Christopher Gilligan Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Hye Jin Moon; Kyoung Hyo Choi; Dae Ha Kim; Ha Jeong Kim; Young Ki Cho; Kwang Hee Leem; Jung Hoo Kim; Yoo Jung Choi Journal: Ann Rehabil Med Date: 2014-12
Authors: Julie M Fritz; Jason A Sharpe; Elizabeth Lane; Doug Santillo; Tom Greene; Gregory Kawchuk Journal: Trials Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 2.279