Inter-examinerreliability study of physical examination procedures to assess the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the level of inter-examiner reliability for six common cervical manual and physical examination procedures used to assess the cervical spine. MATERIALS: Reliability study that used a convenience sample of 51 patients between the ages of 16-70 years presenting with a chief complaint of neck pain. Two physical therapists independently performed the same series of cervical physical examination procedures on each of the participant. The clinicians were blinded to each other's findings and the clinical status of the patient. Kappa coefficients (κ) were calculated for levels of agreement between the clinicians for each procedure. RESULTS: When assessing for asymmetrical motion, excellent levels of reliability (κ range: 0.88-0.96) were observed for the Bilateral Modified Lateral Shear (asymmetry criterion), Bilateral C2 Spinous Kick (asymmetry criterion) and Flexion-Rotation Tests. When pain provocation was used as the indicator of a positive test during palpation of the cervical facet joints, moderate to substantial levels of reliability (κ range: 0.53-0.76) were observed. When patients were instructed not to provide feedback to the clinicians about pain provocation during facet joint palpation and clinicians relied solely on their qualitative assessment of segmental mobility, the level of reliability was lower (κ range: 0.45-0.53). Due to 100 % prevalence of negative findings, Kappa values could not be calculated for the Sharp-Purser test or the Unilateral C2 Spinous Kick Test. CONCLUSIONS: Most physical examination procedures examined in this study demonstrated moderate to excellent levels of inter-examiner reliability. Palpation for segmental mobility without pain provocation demonstrated a lower level of reliability compared to palpation for pain provocation. Correlation with clinical findings is necessary to establish validity and the applicability of these procedures in clinical practice.

Inter-examiner reliability of radiographic measurements from Open-mouth lateral bending cervical radiographs.

BACKGROUND: Following head and neck trauma, the involvement of the cranio-cervical junction (CCJ) and its contribution to a patients transition to chronic pain, is poorly understood. The detection of hypermobility in this region is dependent on clinical examination and static imaging modalities such as x-ray, CT and MRI. Sagittal plane hypermobility of the CCJ is evaluated using saggital view, flexion-extension cervical radiographs. Frontal plane hypermobility is typically assessed using lateral bending and open mouth cervical radiographs. Unfortunately there is no established reliability surrounding the use of these measures. This study explores the reliability of radiographic measurements of lateral-bending open-mouth cervical radiographs. METHODS: Cervical open-mouth lateral-bending X-ray images were collected from 56 different patients between 18 and 60 years of age patients following cervical spine injury. These images were interpreted by two musculoskeletal radiologists and two clinicians (physiatrist and chiropractor), using a standard set of measurements. Measurements included qualitative and quantitative assessments of the amount of asymmetry noted between various osseous landmarks. Reliability statistics were calculated for levels of agreement using kappa coefficients (κ) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Reliability (κ) for qualitative assessments were moderate to substantial for asymmetry of neutral C2 spinous position, dens-lateral mass spacing, and "step off" between the lateral borders of the articular pillars of C2 and C1 lateral mass (κ range = .47-.78). ICC values for the quantitative measurements of dens-lateral mass spacing and "step off" between the lateral borders of the C2 articular pillars and C1 lateral mass were moderate to excellent (ICC range = .56-.97). CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative and quantitative measurements used in this study demonstrated good to excellent inter-examiner reliability. Correlation with clinical findings is necessary to establish the utility of these measurements in clinical practice.