Screening of the spine in adolescents: inter- and intra-rater reliability and measurement error of commonly used clinical tests

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Lise Hestbaek³  Linn Kentsdotter¹  Anna Degerfalk²  Ellen Aartun³ 

[1] Clinical practice, Aktivera kiropraktik & rehab, Glimmervägen 14, SE-19131 Sollentuna, Sweden;Clinical practice, Ryggcentrum Lund, Botulfsgatan 2, SE-22350 Lund, Sweden;Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark

关键词: Mobility;    Adolescents;    Spine;    Intersegmental mobility;    Hypermobility;    Scoliosis;    Measurement error;    Reliability;   

Others  :  1128843
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-37

 received in 2013-01-08, accepted in 2014-02-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evidence on the reliability of clinical tests used for the spinal screening of children and adolescents is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-rater reliability and measurement error of clinical tests commonly used when screening young spines.

Methods

Two experienced chiropractors independently assessed 111 adolescents aged 12–14 years who were recruited from a primary school in Denmark. A standardised examination protocol was used to test inter-rater reliability including tests for scoliosis, hypermobility, general mobility, inter-segmental mobility and end range pain in the spine. Seventy-five of the 111 subjects were re-examined after one to four hours to test intra-rater reliability. Percentage agreement and Cohen’s Kappa were calculated for binary variables, and interclass correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots with Limits of Agreement (LoA) were calculated for continuous measures.

Results

Inter-rater percentage agreement for binary data ranged from 59.5% to 100%. Kappa ranged from 0.06-1.00. Kappa ≥ 0.40 was seen for elbow, thumb, fifth finger and trunk/hip flexion hypermobility, pain response in inter-segmental mobility and end range pain in lumbar flexion and extension. For continuous data, ICCs ranged from 0.40-0.95. Only forward flexion as measured by finger-to-floor distance reached an acceptable ICC(≥ 0.75). Overall, results for intra-rater reliability were better than for inter-rater reliability but for both components, the LoA were quite wide compared with the range of assessments.

Conclusion

Some clinical tests showed good, and some tests poor, reliability when applied in a spinal screening of adolescents. The results could probably be improved by additional training and further test standardization. This is the first step in evaluating the value of these tests for the spinal screening of adolescents. Future research should determine the association between these tests and current and/or future neck and back pain.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Aartun et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jeffries LJ, Milanese SF, Grimmer-Somers KA: Epidemiology of adolescent spinal pain: a systematic overview of the research literature. Spine 2007, 32(23):2630-2637.
• [2]Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvik KO: At what age does low back pain become a common problem? A study of 29,424 individuals aged 12–41 years. Spine 1998, 23(2):228-234.
• [3]Mikkelsson M, El-Metwally A, Kautiainen H, Auvinen A, Macfarlane GJ, Salminen JJ: Onset, prognosis and risk factors for widespread pain in schoolchildren: a prospective 4-year follow-up study. Pain 2008, 138(3):681-687.
• [4]Stahl M, Kautiainen H, El-Metwally A, Hakkinen A, Ylinen J, Salminen JJ, Mikkelsson M: Non-specific neck pain in schoolchildren: prognosis and risk factors for occurrence and persistence: a 4-year follow-up study. Pain 2008, 137(2):316-322.
• [5]Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvik KO, Manniche C: The course of low back pain from adolescence to adulthood: eight-year follow-up of 9600 twins. Spine 2006, 31(4):468-472.
• [6]Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD: Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 2008, 299(6):656-664.
• [7]Maniadakis N, Gray A: The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000, 84(1):95-103.
• [8]Hootman JM, Macera CA, Ainsworth BE, Addy CL, Martin M, Blair SN: Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injuries among sedentary and physically active adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002, 34(5):838-844.
• [9]Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Manniche C: Low back pain: what is the long-term course? A review of studies of general patient populations. Eur Spine J 2003, 12(2):149-165.
• [10]Cote P, Kreitz BG, Cassidy JD, Dzus AK, Martel J: A study of the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the Scoliometer and Adam’s forward bend test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998, 23(7):796-802. discussion 803
• [11]Karim A, Millet V, Massie K, Olson S, Morganthaler A: Inter-rater reliability of a musculoskeletal screen as administered to female professional contemporary dancers. Work 2011, 40(3):281-288.
• [12]Hirsch C, Hirsch M, John MT, Bock JJ: Reliability of the Beighton Hypermobility Index to determinate the general joint laxity performed by dentists. J Orofac Orthop 2007, 68(5):342-352.
• [13]Boyle KL, Witt P, Riegger-Krugh C: Intrarater and interrater reliability of the beighton and horan joint mobility index. J Athl Train 2003, 38(4):281-285.
• [14]Juul-Kristensen B, Rogind H, Jensen DV, Remvig L: Inter-examiner reproducibility of tests and criteria for generalized joint hypermobility and benign joint hypermobility syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007, 46(12):1835-1841.
• [15]Perret C, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, Colau MM, Benhamou MA, Revel M: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the fingertip-to-floor test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001, 82(11):1566-1570.
• [16]Viitanen JV, Heikkila S, Kokko ML, Kautiainen H: Clinical assessment of spinal mobility measurements in ankylosing spondylitis: a compact set for follow-up and trials? Clin Rheumatol 2000, 19(2):131-137.
• [17]Frost M, Stuckey S, Smalley LA, Dorman G: Reliability of measuring trunk motions in centimeters. Phys Ther 1982, 62(10):1431-1437.
• [18]Hyytiainen K, Salminen JJ, Suvitie T, Wickstrom G, Pentti J: Reproducibility of nine tests to measure spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991, 23(1):3-10.
• [19]Stochkendahl MJ, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J, Vach W, Haas M, Hestbaek L, Adams A, Bronfort G: Manual examination of the spine: a systematic critical literature review of reproducibility. J Manip Physiol Ther 2006, 29(6):475-485. 485 e471-410
• [20]Pool JJ, Hoving JL, de Vet HC, van Mameren H, Bouter LM: The interexaminer reproducibility of physical examination of the cervical spine. J Manip Physiol Ther 2004, 27(2):84-90.
• [21]Vach W: The dependence of Cohen’s kappa on the prevalence does not matter. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(7):655-661.
• [22]Beighton P, Solomon L, Soskolne CL: Articular mobility in an African population. Ann Rheum Dis 1973, 32(5):413-418.
• [23]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(7):737-745.
• [24]Cohen J: Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968, 70(4):213-220.
• [25]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-174.
• [26]Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86(2):420-428.
• [27]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1(8476):307-310.
• [28]Remvig L, Jensen DV, Ward RC: Epidemiology of general joint hypermobility and basis for the proposed criteria for benign joint hypermobility syndrome: review of the literature. J Rheumatol 2007, 34(4):804-809.
• [29]Portney LG, Watkins M: Foundation of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2009.
• [30]van Trijffel E, Anderegg Q, Bossuyt PM, Lucas C: Inter-examiner reliability of passive assessment of intervertebral motion in the cervical and lumbar spine: a systematic review. Man Ther 2005, 10(4):256-269.
• [31]Guidelines about Notification etc. of a Biomedical Research Project to the Committee System on Biomedical Research Ethics, No 9154, 5 May 2011 [http://www.cvk.sum.dk/English/guidelinesaboutnotification.aspx webcite]
• [32]Muller R, Buttner P: A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 1994, 13(23–24):2465-2476.
• [33]Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG: Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 2008, 26(14):1557-1565.