首页> 外文期刊>BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders >Accuracy of clinical neurological examination in diagnosing lumbo-sacral radiculopathy: a systematic literature review
【24h】

Accuracy of clinical neurological examination in diagnosing lumbo-sacral radiculopathy: a systematic literature review

机译:临床神经系统检查在诊断腰-神经根病中的准确性:系统的文献综述

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Lumbar radiculopathy remains a clinical challenge among primary care clinicians in both assessment and diagnosis. This often leads to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of patients resulting in poor health outcomes, exacerbating this already debilitating condition. This review evaluated 12 primary diagnostic accuracy studies that specifically assessed the performance of various individual and grouped clinical neurological tests in detecting nerve root impingement, as established in the current literature. Methods Eight electronic data bases were searched for relevant articles from inception until July 2016. All primary diagnostic studies which investigated the accuracy of clinical neurological test (s) in diagnosing lumbar radiculopathy among patients with low back and referred leg symptoms were screened for inclusion. Qualifying studies were retrieved and independently assessed for methodological quality using the ‘Quality Assessment of Diagnostic tests Accuracy Studies’ criteria. Results A total of 12 studies which investigated standard components of clinical neurological examination of (sensory, motor, tendon reflex and neuro-dynamics) of the lumbo-sacral spine were included. The mean inter-observer agreement on quality assessment by two independent reviewers was fair (k?=?0.3 – 0.7). The diagnostic performance of sensory testing using MR imaging as a reference standard demonstrated a sensitivity (confidence interval 95%) 0.61 (0.47-0.73) and a specificity of 0.63 (0.38-0.84). Motor tests sensitivity was poor to moderate, ranging from 0.13 (0.04-0.31) to 0.61 (0.36-0.83). Generally, the diagnostic performance of reflex testing was notably good with specificity ranging from (confidence interval 95%) 0.60 (0.51-0.69) to 0.93 (0.87-0.97) and sensitivity ranging from 0.14 (0.09-0.21) to 0.67 (0.21-0.94). Femoral nerve stretch test had a high sensitivity of (confidence interval 95%) 1.00 (0.40-1.00) and specificity of 0.83 (0.52-0.98) while SLR test recorded a mean sensitivity of 0.84 (0.72-0.92) and specificity of 0.78 (0.67-0.87). Conclusions There is a scarcity of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical neurological examination testing. Furthermore there seem to be a disconnect among researchers regarding the diagnostic utility of lower limb neuro-dynamic tests which include the Straight Leg Raise and Femoral Nerve tests for sciatic and femoral nerve respectively. Whether these tests are able to detect the presence of disc herniation and subsequent nerve root compression or hyper-sensitivity of the sacral and femoral plexus due to mechanical irritation still remains debatable.
机译:背景腰神经根病仍然是初级保健临床医生在评估和诊断方面的临床挑战。这通常会导致患者的误诊和不适当的治疗,从而导致健康状况不佳,从而加剧这种已经使人虚弱的状况。这篇综述评估了12项主要的诊断准确性研究,这些研究专门评估了各种单独的和分组的临床神经系统测试在检测神经根撞击方面的性能,如当前文献所确定的那样。方法从开始到2016年7月,从八个电子数据库中搜索相关文章。筛选所有纳入临床神经学检查以诊断腰背和下肢症状的患者的神经根神经病的准确性的主要诊断研究。检索合格的研究,并使用“诊断测试的质量评估准确性研究”标准对方法学质量进行独立评估。结果总共包括12项研究,研究腰s骨神经的临床神经系统检查(感觉,运动,腱反射和神经动力学)的标准成分。两名独立审评员在观察员之间达成的关于质量评估的平均协议是公平的(k?=?0.3 – 0.7)。使用MR成像作为参考标准的感觉测试的诊断性能证明其灵敏度(置信区间95%)为0.61(0.47-0.73),特异性为0.63(0.38-0.84)。运动测试的敏感性差到中等,范围从0.13(0.04-0.31)到0.61(0.36-0.83)。通常,反射测试的诊断性能特别好,特异性范围为(置信区间95%)0.60(0.51-0.69)至0.93(0.87-0.97),灵敏度范围为0.14(0.09-0.21)至0.67(0.21-0.94) )。股神经拉伸试验的高灵敏度(置信区间为95%)为1.00(0.40-1.00),特异性为0.83(0.52-0.98),而SLR试验的平均灵敏度为0.84(0.72-0.92),特异性为0.78(0.67) -0.87)。结论缺乏关于临床神经系统检查测试的诊断准确性的研究。此外,对于下肢神经动力学测试的诊断效用,研究人员之间似乎存在脱节。这些测试包括分别针对坐骨神经和股神经的直腿抬高和股神经测试。这些测试是否能够检测出椎间盘突出症和随后的神经根受压,或由于机械刺激而导致的and,股神经丛的超敏性仍然值得商bat。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号