ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2015
The Use of Passive Straight Leg Raising Test: A Survey of Clinicians.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Tests and Functional Capacity in Office Workers With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain Between Mild and Moderate Pain Intensity: A Comparative Study.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Universal goniometer and electro-goniometer intra-examiner reliability in measuring the knee range of motion during active knee extension test in patients with chronic low back pain with short hamstring muscle.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPassive Straight Leg Raising Test (PSLRT) is one of the most commonly performed test in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to survey the practice and interpretation of PSLRT amongst clinicians working in a tertiary care hospital.
methodsA 15 item questionnaire survey was developed covering various aspects of PSLRT. Orthopaedic surgeons(n=15), neurosurgeons (n=7) and physiotherapists (n=9)were identified as clinicians performing this test regularly and were approached to take part in the survey.
resultsThe PSLRT was used in all cases of back and leg pain by 68% and correctly performed by 30/31. There was a wide variation in the angle at which it was considered positive (median 45 degrees; range 10-90 degrees). Only 7/31 correctly recognised reproduction of leg pain as indicative of a positive PSLRT. The sitting /distraction SLRT andwell leg / cross SLRT was performed only by 3/31 and 16/31 of clinicians respectively. 90% felt that a positive PSLRT suggested nerve root irritation and 57% thought it was due to stretch of dura and / or nerve root. 23/31 clinicians felt that PSLRT was useful or very useful and 90% reported that result of PSLRT would affect the way they treat a patient.
conclusionsPSLRT is widely used, correctly performed and felt to be useful in practice. But the interpretation of a positive test, understanding of its mechanism and useof variations is poor. There is a need to improve the interpretation and understanding of PSLRT amongst its users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.