J Man Manip Ther. 2015 Sep;23(4):197-204. doi: 10.1179/2042618615Y.0000000002.

The inter-rater reliability of clinical tests that best predict the subclassification of lumbar segmental instability: structural, functional and combined instability.

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy

Faisal M Alyazedi, Everett B Lohman, R Wesley Swen, Khaled Bahjri

PMID: 26917937 PMCID: PMC4727732 DOI: 10.1179/2042618615Y.0000000002

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the inter-rater reliability of three structural end range lumbar segmental instability tests with the highest positive likelihood ratio (+ LR) against flexion-extension radiographs, and three functional mid-range clinical tests that predict the success of lumbar stabilisation exercises in patients with recurrent or chronic low-back pain (R/CLBP). The study also investigated the reliability of lumbar segmental instability, subclassification as: functional, structural and combined instability.

METHOD: Forty adults with R/CLBP (30 men and 10 women), aged 21-71 years, underwent repeated measurements of specific clinical tests for structural or functional lumbar segmental instability.

RESULTS: All functional-instability tests: the prone instability test (PIT), the aberrant motion test and the average passive straight-leg raise (PSLR>91°) test showed a high percentage agreement (90, 97·5 and 95%, respectively) and a high kappa coefficient (0·71, 0·79 and 0·77, respectively). In addition, two structural tests: the lumbar flexion range of motion (ROM) >53° and the passive lumbar extension test (PLET) showed a high percentage agreement (82 and 73%, respectively), and a moderate kappa coefficient (0·48 and 0·46, respectively). The lack of hypomobility with the posteroanterior (PA) glide test was found to be unreliable (agreement = 25%; k = - 0·02). Locating the pain-provoking segment, as the first portion of PIT, was found to be moderately reliable (k = 0·41). The subclassification categories of lumbar segmental instability (functional, structural and combined) were found to be significantly reliable (PABAK) 0·90, 0·70 and 0·95, respectively).

DISCUSSION: All investigated tests (except the lack of hypomobility with the PA glide test), in addition to subclassifying the categories of lumbar segmental instability, were significantly reliable in the assessment of lumbar instability.

Keywords: Clinical prediction rule; Low-back pain; Physical examination; Reliability; Segmental instability

References

1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;86(9):1753-62 - PubMed
2. Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):257-68 - PubMed
3. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1331-4 - PubMed
4. Phys Ther. 2006 Dec;86(12 ):1661-7 - PubMed
5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):588-95 - PubMed
6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19):E670-81 - PubMed
7. BMJ. 2003 Aug 9;327(7410):323 - PubMed
8. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005 Nov 07;6:56 - PubMed
9. Eur Spine J. 2005 Oct;14 (8):743-50 - PubMed
10. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Dec;84(12):1858-64 - PubMed
11. Radiology. 2007 Oct;245(1):62-77 - PubMed
12. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 1;26(11):E243-8 - PubMed
13. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):551-8 - PubMed
14. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2007 Nov;50(8):677-84, 669-76 - PubMed
15. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Aug;13(4):371-9 - PubMed
16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Sep;12(7):632-44 - PubMed
17. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Mar;41(3):130-40 - PubMed
18. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 - PubMed
19. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008 Jul-Aug;31(6):465-73 - PubMed
20. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9 - PubMed
21. Phys Ther. 2001 Feb;81(2):776-88 - PubMed
22. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Jun;17(6):617-28 - PubMed
23. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Feb;43(2):83-90 - PubMed
24. Pain. 1993 Feb;52(2):157-68 - PubMed
25. J Spinal Disord. 1992 Dec;5(4):390-6; discussion 397 - PubMed
26. J Man Manip Ther. 2010 Mar;18(1):9-14 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article