These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Visual and instrumental diagnostics using chromokinegraphics: Reliability and validity for low back pain stratification.
    Author: Giesche F, Krause F, Niederer D, Wilke J, Engeroff T, Vogt L, Banzer W.
    Journal: J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil; 2019; 32(2):345-353. PubMed ID: 30412482.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Low back pain patients have been suggested to exhibit dysfunctional spinal movement patterns. However, there is a lack of clinically applicable but valid and reliable assessment tools, helping to discriminate normal and pathologically altered movement. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether kinematic parameters determined with an ultrasound-based motion analysis and thereof derived chromokinegraphical angle-time matrices (CATMAs) are able to discriminate between non-symptomatic and symptomatic movement behaviour in individuals with non-specific chronic (CLBP), specific low back pain (SLBP), and controls. METHODS: Thoracic and lumbar spine range of motion (ROM [∘]); angular velocity (V [∘/sec]) and side-to-side differences [%] during a lateral flexion movement were assessed in 17 healthy participants, 16 individuals with CLBP and 11 SLBP patients. CATMAs ratings of two investigators (6-item Likert scale) were dichotomised, classifying the observed movement as physiological or non-physiological. Intrarater and interrater reliability were estimated using kappa statistics and Cronbach's Alpha. T-tests and a ROC analysis to determine optimal cut-offs for the separation of the collectives as well as contingency tables for selectivity of the cut-offs (motor outcomes) were calculated. RESULTS: CATMA ratings displayed partly moderate to good (rater B; i.e. CLBP vs. controls) and partly insufficient discriminant validity (rater A). Due to this, inter-rater reliability was poor (k= 0.061 to 0.135), while intra-rater-reliability was moderate to good for both raters (k= 0.329 to 0.625) except for SLBP vs. controls (rater A; k=-0.18). Regarding kinematics, group differences occurred neither in ROM nor in V (p> 0.05), but in terms of the relative side comparison between CLBP and controls (p<0.05). ROC analysis (CLBP vs. controls) revealed an optimal cut-off at side asymmetries of 16.9% (ROM) and 28.9% (V). Between SLBP patients and controls, no significant differences were observed neither in terms of the absolute values nor the relative side differences of both kinematic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Side asymmetries of V and ROM may be used to differentiate between controls and individuals with CLBP. CATMAs appear to be of limited diagnostic value for the identification of pathological spine movement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]