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

被引:0
作者
Sidney M. Rubinstein
Jan J. M. Pool
Maurits W. van Tulder
Ingrid I. Riphagen
Henrica C. W. de Vet
机构
[1] VU University Medical Center,Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO)
[2] Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences,Institute for Health Sciences
[3] VU University Medical Center,Library
来源
European Spine Journal | 2007年 / 16卷
关键词
Sensitivity; Specificity; Diagnostic accuracy; Systematic review; Cervical radiculopathy; Upper limb tension test; Spurling’s test; Shoulder abduction test;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
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 traction/neck 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, traction/neck 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.
引用
收藏
页码:307 / 319
页数:12
相关论文
共 148 条
[1]  
Abdulwahab SS(2000)Neck retractions, cervical root decompression, and radicular pain J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30 4-9
[2]  
Sabbahi M(1996)Cervical radiculopathy Orthop Clin North Am 27 253-263
[3]  
Ahlgren BD(1996)A critical assessment of clinical diagnosis of disc herniation in patients with monoradicular sciatica Acta Neurochir (Wien) 138 40-44
[4]  
Garfin SR(1999)The electrodiagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected cervical radiculopathy: literature review on the usefulness of needle electromyography Muscle Nerve 22 S213-S221
[5]  
Albeck MJ(1999)Practice parameter for needle electromyogrphic evaluation of patients with suspected cervical radiculopathy: summary statement Muscle Nerve 22 S209-S211
[6]  
An HS(1996)Cervical root entrapment Hand Clin 12 719-730
[7]  
Bachmann LM(2002)Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read J Am Med Inform Assoc 9 653-658
[8]  
Coray R(1996)Two-dimensional MRI at 1.5 and 0.5 T versus CT myelography in the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy Neuroradiology 38 142-147
[9]  
Estermann P(1998)A comparison of T2 and gadolinium enhanced MRI with CT myelography in cervical radiculopathy Br J Radiol 71 11-19
[10]  
Ter Riet G(2003)MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of neurogenic foot drop AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24 1283-1289