首页> 外文期刊>European Spine Journal >A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of provocative tests of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy
【24h】

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of provocative tests of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy

机译:对颈椎病进行诊断性颈椎病的诊断准确性的系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Clinical provocative tests of the neck, which position the neck and arm inorder to aggravate or relieve arm symptoms, are commonly used in clinical practice in patients with a suspected cervical radiculopathy. Their diagnostic accuracy, however, has never been examined in a systematic review. A comprehensive search was conducted in order to identify all possible studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A study was included if: (1) any provocative test of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy was identified; (2) any reference standard was used; (3) sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be (re-)calculated; and, (4) the publication was a full report. Two reviewers independently selected studies, and assessed methodological quality. Only six studies met the inclusion criteria, which evaluated five provocative tests. In general, Spurling’s test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and high specificity, as did tractioneck distraction, and Valsalva’s maneuver. The upper limb tension test (ULTT) demonstrated high sensitivity and low specificity, while the shoulder abduction test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity. Common methodological flaws included lack of an optimal reference standard, disease progression bias, spectrum bias, and review bias. Limitations include few primary studies, substantial heterogeneity, and numerous methodological flaws among the studies; therefore, a meta-analysis was not conducted. This review suggests that, when consistent with the history and other physical findings, a positive Spurling’s, tractioneck distraction, and Valsalva’s might be indicative of a cervical radiculopathy, while a negative ULTT might be used to rule it out. However, the lack of evidence precludes any firm conclusions regarding their diagnostic value, especially when used in primary care. More high quality studies are necessary in order to resolve this issue.
机译:颈部临床刺激性测试可在颈部和手臂上定位,以加重或缓解手臂症状,通常在疑似宫颈神经根病患者的临床实践中使用。但是,它们的诊断准确性从未经过系统的审查。为了确定所有符合纳入标准的可能研究,进行了全面搜索。如果满足以下条件,则包括一项研究:(1)鉴定出用于诊断颈神经根病的任何刺激性试验; (2)使用了任何参考标准; (3)报告了敏感性和特异性,或者可以(重新)计算敏感性和特异性; (4)该出版物为完整报告。两名审稿人独立选择研究,并评估方法学质量。只有六项研究符合纳入标准,该标准评估了五项刺激性测试。一般来说,Spurling的测试显示出低至中度的敏感性和高特异性,牵引力/颈部牵引力和Valsalva的动作也是如此。上肢拉伸试验(ULTT)表现出高敏感性和低特异性,而肩关节外展试验显示出低至中等敏感性和中高特异性。常见的方法缺陷包括缺乏最佳参考标准,疾病进展偏倚,频谱偏倚和评论偏倚。局限性包括几乎没有基础研究,实质性的异质性以及研究之间的许多方法学缺陷。因此,没有进行荟萃分析。这项审查表明,与病史和其他身体检查结果一致时,斯普林氏阳性,牵引/颈部分散以及瓦尔萨尔瓦氏阳性可能表明宫颈神经根病,而负ULTT可能被排除。但是,由于缺乏证据,因此无法就其诊断价值做出任何确凿的结论,尤其是在用于初级保健时。为了解决此问题,需要进行更多高质量的研究。

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