↓ Skip to main content

A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
14 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvano Ferrari, Tiziana Manni, Francesca Bonetti, Jorge Hugo Villafañe, Carla Vanti

Abstract

Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = -0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 376 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 18%
Student > Bachelor 52 13%
Other 47 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 10%
Student > Postgraduate 29 8%
Other 86 22%
Unknown 65 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 83 22%
Sports and Recreations 21 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 72 19%