umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Intra- and inter-rater reliability of movement and palpation tests in patients with neck pain: A systematic review
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation.
2018 (English)In: Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, ISSN 0959-3985, E-ISSN 1532-5040, Vol. 34, no 3, p. 165-180Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Neck pain is common and often becomes chronic. Various clinical tests of the cervical spine are used to direct and evaluate treatment. This systematic review aimed to identify studies examining the intra- and/or interrater reliability of tests used in clinical examination of patients with neck pain. A database search up to April 2016 was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and AMED. The Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies Checklist (QAREL) was used to assess risk of bias. Eleven studies were included, comprising tests of active and passive movement and pain evaluating participants with ongoing neck pain. One study was assessed with a low risk of bias, three with medium risk, while the rest were assessed with high risk of bias. The results showed differing reliabilities for the included tests ranging from poor to almost perfect. In conclusion, active movement and pain for pain or mobility overall presented acceptable to very good reliability (Kappa >0.40); while passive intervertebral tests had lower Kappa values, suggesting poor reliability. It may be a coincidence that the studies indicating very good reliability tended to be of higher quality (low to moderate risk of bias), while studies finding poor reliability tended to be of lower quality (high risk of bias). Regardless, the current recommendation from this review would suggest the clinical use of tests with acceptable reliability and avoiding the use of tests that have been shown to not be reliable. Finally, it is critical that all future reliability studies are of higher quality with low risk of bias.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC , 2018. Vol. 34, no 3, p. 165-180
Keywords [en]
Manual therapy, physical examination, range of movement, rehabilitation, reproducibility of results
National Category
Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-144359DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1390806ISI: 000419989700001PubMedID: 29111857OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-144359DiVA, id: diva2:1179879
Available from: 2018-02-02 Created: 2018-02-02 Last updated: 2018-02-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation
In the same journal
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf