A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of orthopedic physical examination tests of the hip

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Ian Andrew Harris¹  Sarah So²  Rajat Mittal¹  Justine Maree Naylor¹  Sam Adie¹  Labib Ataur Rahman² 

[1] Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, P.O. Box 906, Caringbah, NSW 2229, Australia;South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 906, Caringbah, NSW 2229, Australia

关键词: Orthopedics;    Systematic review;    Likelihood ratios;    Predictive values;    Sensitivity and specificity;    Diagnosis;    Hip/Hip joint;    Physical examination/physical tests;   

Others  :  1129868
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-257

 received in 2012-12-18, accepted in 2013-08-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Previous reviews of the diagnostic performances of physical tests of the hip in orthopedics have drawn limited conclusions because of the low to moderate quality of primary studies published in the literature. This systematic review aims to build on these reviews by assessing a broad range of hip pathologies, and employing a more selective approach to the inclusion of studies in order to accurately gauge diagnostic performance for the purposes of making recommendations for clinical practice and future research. It specifically identifies tests which demonstrate strong and moderate diagnostic performance.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Embase Classic and CINAHL was conducted to identify studies of hip tests. Our selection criteria included an analysis of internal and external validity. We reported diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Likelihood ratios were used to identify tests with strong and moderate diagnostic utility.

Results

Only a small proportion of tests reported in the literature have been assessed in methodologically valid primary studies. 16 studies were included in our review, producing 56 independent test-pathology combinations. Two tests demonstrated strong clinical utility, the patellar-pubic percussion test for excluding radiologically occult hip fractures (negative LR 0.05, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.03-0.08) and the hip abduction sign for diagnosing sarcoglycanopathies in patients with known muscular dystrophies (positive LR 34.29, 95% CI 10.97-122.30). Fifteen tests demonstrated moderate diagnostic utility for diagnosing and/or excluding hip fractures, symptomatic osteoarthritis and loosening of components post-total hip arthroplasty.

Conclusions

We have identified a number of tests demonstrating strong and moderate diagnostic performance. These findings must be viewed with caution as there are concerns over the methodological quality of the primary studies from which we have extracted our data. Future studies should recruit larger, representative populations and allow for the construction of complete 2×2 contingency tables.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Rahman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hegedus EJ, Goode A, Campbell S, Morin A, Tamaddoni M, Moorman CT 3rd, Cook C: Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med 2008, 42:80-92. discussion 92
• [2]Sackett DL, Rennie D: The science of the art of the clinical examination. JAMA 1992, 267:2650-2652.
• [3]McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL: Why we need large, simple studies of the clinical examination: the problem and a proposed solution. CARE-COAD1 group: clinical assessment of the reliability of the examination-chronic obstructive airways disease group. Lancet 1999, 354:1721-1724.
• [4]McBeath AA: Some common causes of hip pain: physical diagnosis is the key. Postgrad Med 1985, 77:189-192. 194–185, 198
• [5]Burgess RM, Rushton A, Wright C, Daborn C: The validity and accuracy of clinical diagnostic tests used to detect labral pathology of the hip: a systematic review. Manual Ther 2011, 16:318-326.
• [6]Leibold MR, Huijbregts PA, Jensen R: Concurrent criterion-related validity of physical examination tests for hip labral lesions: a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther 2008, 16:E24-41.
• [7]Reiman MP, Goode AP, Hegedus EJ, Cook CE, Wright AA: Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests of the hip: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2012, 47:893-902.
• [8]Tijssen M, van Cingel R, Willemsen L, de Visser E: Diagnostics of femoroacetabular impingement and labral pathology of the hip: a systematic review of the accuracy and validity of physical tests. Arthroscopy 2012, 28:860-871.
• [9]Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL: Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1994, 271:703-707.
• [10]Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB: Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:763-770.
• [11]Adams SL, Yarnold PR: Clinical use of the patellar-pubic percussion sign in hip trauma. Am J Emerg Med 1997, 15:173-175.
• [12]Anwar MM, Sugano N, Masuhara K, Kadowaki T, Takaoka K, Ono K: Total hip arthroplasty in the neglected congenital dislocation of the hip: a five- to 14-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993, 295:127-134.
• [13]Bache JB, Cross AB: The Barford test. A useful diagnostic sign in fractures of the femoral neck. Practitioner 1984, 228:305-308.
• [14]Bird PA, Oakley SP, Shnier R, Kirkham BW: Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and physical examination findings in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44:2138-2145.
• [15]Birrell F, Croft P, Cooper C, Hosie G, Macfarlane G, Silman A: Predicting radiographic hip osteoarthritis from range of movement. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001, 40:506-512.
• [16]Garcia FL, Picado CH, Nogueira-Barbosa MH: Sonographic evaluation of the abductor mechanism after total hip arthroplasty. J Ultrasound Med 2010, 29:465-471.
• [17]Hananouchi T, Yasui Y, Yamamoto K, Toritsuka Y, Ohzono K: Anterior impingement test for labral lesions has high positive predictive value. Clin Orthop 2012, 470:3524-3529.
• [18]Holla JF, van der Leeden M, Roorda LD, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Damen J, Dekker J, Steultjens MP: Diagnostic accuracy of range of motion measurements in early symptomatic hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012, 64:59-65.
• [19]Hossain M, Barwick C, Sinha AK, Andrew JG: Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) necessary to exclude occult hip fracture? Injury 2007, 38:1204-1208.
• [20]Khadilkar SV, Singh RK: Hip abduction sign: a new clinical sign in sarcoglycanopathies. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2001, 3:13-15.
• [21]Narvani AA, Tsiridis E, Kendall S, Chaudhuri R, Thomas P: A preliminary report on prevalence of acetabular labrum tears in sports patients with groin pain. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2003, 11:403-408.
• [22]Olsson SS, Jernberger A, Tryggo D: Clinical and radiological long-term results after Charnley-Muller total hip replacement. A 5 to 10 year follow-up study with special reference to aseptic loosening. Acta Orthop Scand 1981, 52:531-542.
• [23]Röder C, Eggli S, Aebi M, Busato A: The validity of clinical examination in the diagnosis of loosening of components in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003, 85:37-44.
• [24]Shin AY, Morin WD, Gorman JD, Jones SB, Lapinsky AS: The superiority of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating the cause of hip pain in endurance athletes. Am J Sports Med 1996, 24:168-176.
• [25]Sutlive TG, Lopez HP, Schnitker DE, Yawn SE, Halle RJ, Mansfield LT, Boyles RE, Childs JD: Development of a clinical prediction rule for diagnosing hip osteoarthritis in individuals with unilateral hip pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008, 38:542-550.
• [26]Tiru M, Goh SH, Low BY: Use of percussion as a screening tool in the diagnosis of occult hip fractures. Singapore Med J 2002, 43:467-469.
• [27]Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J: No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005, 5:19.
• [28]Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, Bossuyt PM: Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999, 282:1061-1066.