ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2016
The reliability of lumbar motion palpation using continuous analysis and confidence ratings: choosing a relevant index of agreement.
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and reliability of Persian version of Low Physical Activity Questionnaire (LoPAQ).BMC nephrology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Supine and Prone Methods of Leg Length Inequality Assessment.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2017Article
- The reliability of spinal motion palpation determination of the location of the stiffest spinal site is influenced by confidence ratings: a secondary analysis of three studies.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMost studies show motion palpation unreliable. This study's primary objective was assessing its reliability using a continuous measure methods, most-fixated level paradigm, stratified by examiners' confidence; and the secondary objective was comparing various indices of examiner agreement.
methodsThirty-four minimally symptomatic participants were palpated in side posture by two experienced examiners. Interexaminer differences in identifying the most-fixated level and degree of examiner confidence were recorded. Indices of agreement were: Intraclass correlation coefficient, Mean and Median Examiner Absolute Examiner Differences, Root-Mean-Square Error and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement.
resultsThree of four reliability indices (excluding intraclass correlation) suggested on average examiners agreed on the most fixated motion segment, and agreement increased with confidence. Statistical measures of data dispersion were low. The analyses of subgroups were "fragile" due to small sample size. DISCUSSION: Although subject homogeneity lowered ICC levels, the other reliability measures were not similarly impacted. Continuous measures statistical analysis demonstrates examiner agreement in situations where discrete analysis with kappa may not.
conclusionContinuous analysis for the lumbar most-fixated level is reliable. Future studies will need a larger sample size to properly analyze subgroups based on examiner confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27385834PMC4915474What OpenQuestion holds
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.