Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24965495›Full record

ArticleManual therapy2014

Criterion validity of manual assessment of spinal stiffness.

Shane L Koppenhaver, Jeffrey J Hebert, Greg N Kawchuk, John D Childs, Deydre S Teyhen, Theodore Croy, Julie M Fritz

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Manual therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04086667 (What Determines a Positive Outcome of Spinal Manipulation for Persistent Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04086667 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

What Determines a Positive Outcome of Spinal Manipulation for Persistent Low Back Pain: Stiffness or Pain Sensitivity? A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSpine Centre of Southern DenmarkRan2017 to 2019Enrolled132ConditionsLow Back Pain, Pain, ChronicArmsSpinal manipulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interrater Reliability of Motion Palpation in the Thoracic Spine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Shane L KoppenhaverU.S. Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, San Antonio, TX, USA. Electronic address: shanekoppenhaver@mac.com.
Jeffrey J HebertSchool of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Greg N KawchukDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
John D ChildsDepartment of Physical Therapy (MSGS/SGCUY), 81st Medical Group, Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, MS, USA.
Deydre S TeyhenU.S. Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Theodore CroyU.S. Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Julie M FritzUniversity of Utah, College of Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Baylor University · USIntermountain Healthcare · USKeesler Medical Center · USMurdoch University · AUUnited States Department of the Army · USUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

Biomechanical and Neurophysiological Effects of Spinal Manipulative TherapyR21AT004221 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI FRITZ, JULIE M · 2008 to 2009
$477k
NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT004221
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of spinal stiffness is widely used by manual therapy practitioners as a part of clinical diagnosis and treatment selection. Although studies have commonly found poor reliability of such procedures, conflicting evidence suggests that assessment of spinal stiffness may help predict response to specific treatments. The current study evaluated the criterion validity of manual assessments of spinal stiffness by comparing them to indentation measurements in patients with low back pain (LBP). As part of a standard examination, an experienced clinician assessed passive accessory spinal stiffness of the L3 vertebrae using posterior to anterior (PA) force on the spinous process of L3 in 50 subjects (54% female, mean (SD) age = 33.0 (12.8) years, BMI = 27.0 (6.0) kg/m(2)) with LBP. A criterion measure of spinal stiffness was performed using mechanized indentation by a blinded second examiner. Results indicated that manual assessments were uncorrelated to criterion measures of stiffness (spearman rho = 0.06, p = 0.67). Similarly, sensitivity and specificity estimates of judgments of hypomobility were low (0.20-0.45) and likelihood ratios were generally not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of judgments of hypermobility were not calculated due to limited prevalence. Additional analysis found that BMI explained 32% of the variance in the criterion measure of stiffness, yet failed to improve the relationship between assessments. Additional studies should investigate whether manual assessment of stiffness relates to other clinical and biomechanical constructs, such as symptom reproduction, angular rotation, quality of motion, or end feel.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationAdultBack PainBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalPain MeasurementPhysical Therapy ModalitiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpineLow back painManual assessmentStiffnessValidity

Identifiers

PMID24965495
PMCPMC4252603
OpenAlexW2090552136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.