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: Diagnostic accuracy of the lumbar spinal stenosis-diagnosis support tool and the lumbar spinal stenosis-self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire.
    Author: Tominaga R, Kurita N, Sekiguchi M, Yonemoto K, Kakuma T, Konno SI.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2022; 17(5):e0267892. PubMed ID: 35511759.
    Abstract:
    Despite the applicability of the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)-diagnosis support tool (DST) and the LSS-self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire (SSHQ), their diagnostic accuracy has never been compared with that of the well-known North American Spine Society (NASS) clinical description of LSS. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two diagnostic tools with that of the NASS guidelines' clinical description of LSS in a Japanese secondary care hospital setting. This multicenter cross-sectional study used data from the lumbar spinal stenosis diagnostic support tool (DISTO) project, which was conducted from December 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012. Japanese adults with low back pain (LBP) aged ≥20 years were consecutively included. The reference standard was LSS diagnosed by orthopedic physicians. The diagnostic accuracy of the two support tools was compared. Of 3,331 patients, 1,416 (42.5%) patients were diagnosed with LSS. The NASS clinical description of LSS had a sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 89.5%. The LSS-DST and LSS-SSHQ had sensitivities of 91.3% and 83.8% and specificities of 76.0% and 57.6%, respectively, with substantial improvements in sensitivity (P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained when we limited included patients to those aged >60 years. These findings indicated that the LSS-DST and LSS-SSHQ were more sensitive in screening patients with LBP for a diagnosis of LSS than the NASS clinical description of LSS. This study strongly supports prioritizing the use of either of these two diagnostic support tools for screening.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]