ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2024
Interrater reliability of the modified prone instability test for lumbar segmental instability in individuals with mechanical low back pain.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of Functional Lumbar Segmental Instability: Reliability, Validity, and Subclassification of Manual Tests-A Scoping Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to establish the interrater reliability of measures obtained with a novel Modified Prone Instability Test (mPIT), which, like the original Prone Instability Test (PIT), is proposed to identify lumbar segmental instability. The mPIT has clinical feasibility advantages to the PIT, but its psychometric properties are yet to be determined.
designRepeated measures (test-retest) design, methods study.
methodsThe mPIT was administered by two blinded testers, an orthopedic physical therapy resident with < 1 year experience and board-certified orthopedic specialist physical therapist with >25 years' experience. Procedures were administered at an outpatient physical therapy clinic of a tertiary Medical Center. Participants included 50 adults (≥18 years old) with mechanical low back pain and no radicular (below the knee) symptoms (mean age 50.7 years, 66% female, 76% reported previous episodes of low back pain). Interrater reliability was measured via Fleiss' kappa coefficient.
resultsAssessments of the mPIT had moderate interrater agreement (κ = .579 [95% CI = .302 to .856],
conclusionMeasures obtained using the mPIT demonstrated moderate interrater reliability between a new graduate and an experienced clinician, which aligns with several studies examining interrater reliability of the original PIT. Further study examining comparative validation of the mPIT with other lumbar instability measures is warranted.
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.