Diagnostic Accuracy of Clusters of Pain Provocation Tests for Detecting Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. LITERATURE SEARCH: Seven electronic databases and reference lists of included studies and previous reviews were searched. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of clusters of clinical tests for sacroiliac joint pain were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was employed. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to judge credibility of evidence. RESULTS: From 2195 records identified in the search, 5 studies were included that assessed clusters of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint. The estimated positive likelihood ratio was 2.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 3.9), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.72), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 9.01 (95% CI: 1.72, 28.4). The GRADE ratings for the outcomes were of very low certainty. Assuming a point prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain of 20%, we calculated a positive posterior probability of 35% (95% CI: 32%, 37%) and negative posterior probability of 8% (95% CI: 6%, 10%). CONCLUSION: A positive result on a sacroiliac joint pain provocation test cluster gives the clinician 35% certainty of having correctly identified sacroiliac joint pain. Clusters of pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint do not provide sufficient diagnostic accuracy for ruling in the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain. Clinicians can rule out the sacroiliac joint as the source of pain with more confidence: the negative posttest probability indicates that the clinician can conclude with 92% certainty that a negative test result is correct. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(9):422-431. Epub 1 Jul 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10469.