ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
An independent validation of a clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy with radicular pain.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA clinical prediction rule (CPR) for cervical radiculopathy (CR), published in 2003, is widely used in practice and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. To date, this CPR has not been independently validated.
objectiveTo perform an independent broad validation of the 2003 CPR using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as reference standard, and to investigate whether an alternative test cluster has stronger diagnostic utility for identifying CR with radicular pain.
methodsThis prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted following the updated STARD 2015 guidelines. Eighty-five individuals (27 with CR) were included from 109 consecutive patients. The diagnosis of CR was based on cervical spine MRI findings consistent with the patient's clinical features, symptoms, and neurological examination, interpreted by a neurosurgeon. Twelve clinical tests were performed by the same examiner blinded to diagnosis.
resultsValidation of the 2003 CPR (cervical distraction, Spurling's test, upper limb neurodynamic test (ULNT) 1, and cervical rotation <60°) produced diagnostic values comparable to the original study. Our independent cluster based on backwards stepwise regression identified three variables: (1) modified (passive) shoulder abduction test, (2) Spurling's arm pain test, and (3) ≥2 of 4 ULNTs positive. With this new cluster, having all three tests positive provided an infinite LR+ and a 100% post-test probability, identifying 37.0% of CR with radicular pain cases compared to 17.9% in the original 2003 cluster (4/4 positive tests).
conclusionThis study findings corroborate the original 2003 CPR and identified a new cluster that had stronger diagnostic utility for CR with radicular pain.
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.