Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
Published in: Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

The reliability of spinal motion palpation determination of the location of the stiffest spinal site is influenced by confidence ratings: a secondary analysis of three studies

Authors: Robert Cooperstein, Morgan Young

Published in: Chiropractic & Manual Therapies | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This is a secondary analysis of three previous studies on the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines. It uses continuous analysis of the stiffest spinal site rather than more typical level-by-level analysis to assess interexaminer reliability, and the impacts of examiner confidence and spinal region. The primary goal was secondary analysis of the combined data; secondary goal was de novo analysis of combined data emphasizing absolute indices of examiner agreement; and tertiary goal was analysis of actual vs. simulated data to determine to what degree the information provided by motion palpation impacted interexaminer reliability.

Methods

This study emphasized Median Absolute Examiner Differences and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement to calculate examiner differences, which are immune to subject homogeneity, and de-emphasized intraclass correlation, which is not. It calculated Median Absolute Deviation to determine data dispersion. The study analyzed the entire n = 113 combined dataset, as well as subgroups stratified by examiner confidence and spinal region. Simulations were run using a random number generator to provide chance data for examiners' findings of the stiffest spinal site, the analysis of which was compared with that of the actual data.

Results

Median Absolute Examiner Differences for the combined dataset were 0.7 of one vertebral level, suggesting examiners usually agreed on the stiffest spinal site or the motion segment including it. When both examiners were confident in their findings (53.4%), the median examiner difference decreased to 0.6 levels, increasing to 1.0 levels when one lacked confidence and to 1.8 levels when both lacked confidence. Reliability was greater in the cervical and lumbar spines (each 0.6 vertebral levels examiner differences) than in the thoracic spine (1.1 levels examiner differences). The actual information provided by motion palpation compared to simulated data improved interexaminer reliability by a factor ranging from 1.8 times to 4.7 times, depending on the regional subset analyzed.

Conclusions

Examiner decisions regarding the location of the stiffest spinal site were deemed adequately reliable, especially when the examiners were confident. Researchers and clinicians alike might best design their study protocols and practice methods using the stiffest segment protocol as an alternative to level-by-level spinal analysis.
Literature
1.
Haneline M, Cooperstein R, Young M, Birkeland K. An annotated bibliography of spinal motion palpation reliability studies. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2009;53(1):40–58.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Haneline MT, Cooperstein R, Young M, Birkeland K. Spinal motion palpation: a comparison of studies that assessed intersegmental end feel vs excursion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(8):616–26.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Seffinger MA, Najm WI, Mishra SI, Adams A, Dickerson VM, Murphy LS, Reinsch S. Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature. Spine. 2004;29(19):E413–425.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C. Are chiropractic tests for the lumbo-pelvic spine reliable and valid? A systematic critical literature review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23(4):258–75.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Haneline MT, Cooperstein R, Birkeland K. Spinal motion palpation: a comparison of studies that assessed intersegmental end-feel versus excursion. J Chirop Educ. 2008;22(1):59–60.
6.
Marcotte J, Normand MC, Black P. Measurement of the pressure applied during motion palpation and reliability for cervical spine rotation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28(8):591–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Billis EV, Foster NE, Wright CC. Reproducibility and repeatability: errors of three groups of physiotherapists in locating spinal levels by palpation. Man Ther. 2003;8(4):223–32.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Huijbregts PA. Spinal motion palpation: a review of reliability studies. J Man Manip Ther. 2002;10(1):24–39.CrossRef
9.
Cooperstein R, Haneline M. Spinous process palpation using the scapular tip as a landmark vs a radiographic criterion standard. J Chiropr Med. 2007;6(3):87–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Cooperstein R, Haneline MT, Young MD. The location of the inferior angle of the scapula in relation to the spinal level of prone patients. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2009;53(2):121–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Haneline M, Cooperstein R, Young M, Ross J. Determining spinal level using the inferior angle of the scapula as a reference landmark: a retrospective analysis of 50 radiographs. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2008;52(1):24–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Chakraverty R, Pynsent P, Isaacs K. Which spinal levels are identified by palpation of the iliac crests and the posterior superior iliac spines? J Anat. 2007;210(2):232–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Cooperstein R, Haneline M, Young M. Interexaminer reliability of thoracic motion palpation using confidence ratings and continuous analysis. J Chiropr Med. 2010;9(3):99–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Cooperstein R. Interexaminer reliability of cervical motion palpation using continuous measures and rater confidence levels. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2013;57(2):156–64.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Cooperstein R, Young M. The reliability of lumbar motion palpation using continuous analysis and confidence ratings. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2016;60(2):146–57.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
17.
Gilad I, Nissan M. Sagittal evaluation of elemental geometrical dimensions of human vertebrae. J Anat. 1985;143:115–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Terazawa K, Akabane H, Gotouda H, Mizukami K, Nagao M, Takatori T. Estimating stature from the length of the lumbar part of the spine in Japanese. Med Sci Law. 1990;30(4):354–7.PubMed
19.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.PubMed
20.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting differences against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1986;346:1085–7.CrossRef
22.
Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;64(4):284–90.CrossRef
23.
Leys CL, Ley C, Klein O, Bernard P, Licata L. Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49(4):764–6.CrossRef
24.
Pham-Gia T, Hung TL. The mean and median absolute deviations. Math Comput Model. 2001;34(7–8):921–36.CrossRef
25.
26.
Potter NA, Rothstein JM. Intertester reliability for selected clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint. Phys Ther. 1985;65(11):1671–5.PubMed
27.
Lee KM, Lee J, Chung CY, Ahn S, Sung KH, Kim TW, Lee HJ, Park MS. Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Surg. 2012;4(2):149–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, Molnar AO, Dattani ND, Burke A, Guyatt G, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):622–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Haas M, Groupp E, Panzer D, Partna L, Lumsden S, Aickin M. Efficacy of cervical endplay assessment as an indicator for spinal manipulation. Spine. 2003;28(11):1091–6. discussion 1096.PubMed
30.
Christensen HW, Vach W, Vach K, Manniche C, Haghfelt T, Hartvigsen L, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. Palpation of the upper thoracic spine: an observer reliability study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25(5):285–92.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Harlick JC, Milosavljevic S, Milburn PD. Palpation identification of spinous processes in the lumbar spine. Man Ther. 2007;12(1):56–62.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Plaugher G, Lopes MA, Melch PE, Cremata EE. The inter- and intraexaminer reliability of a paraspinal skin temperature differential instrument. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(6):361–7.PubMed
33.
Cooperstein R, Morschhauser E, Lisi A. Cross-sectional validity of compressive leg checking in measuring artificially created leg length inequality. J Chiropr Med. 2004;3(3):91–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Cooperstein R, Morschhauser E, Lisi A, Nick TG. Validity of compressive leg checking in measuring artificial leg-length inequality. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26(9):557–66.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther. 1994;74(8):777–88.PubMed
36.
Dijkman B, Kooistra B, Bhandari M, Evidence-Based Surgery Working G. How to work with a subgroup analysis. Can J Surg. 2009;52(6):515–22.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
DeCina P, Mior S. Interexaminer reliability of motion palpation: the effect of knowledge of the location of pain. In: Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Chicago: FCER; 1992. p. 106.
38.
Cooperstein R, Haas M. The listings continuum: driving a truck through a paradox. Dyn Chiropr. 2001;19(20):28–9. 36.
39.
Leboeuf-Yde C, Hennius B, Rudberg E, Leufvenmark P, Thunman M. Side effects of chiropractic treatment: a prospective study [see comments]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20(8):511–5.PubMed
40.
Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Predictors of side effects to spinal manipulative therapy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19(7):441–5.PubMed
41.
Harvey D, Byfield D. Preliminary studies with a mechanical model for the evaluation of spinal motion palpation. Clin Biomech. 1991;6(2):79–82.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The reliability of spinal motion palpation determination of the location of the stiffest spinal site is influenced by confidence ratings: a secondary analysis of three studies
Authors
Robert Cooperstein
Morgan Young
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2045-709X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0131-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Importance of psychological factors for the recovery from a first episode of acute non-specific neck pain - a longitudinal observational study

Research

The influence of anatomy app use on chiropractic students’ learning outcomes: a randomised controlled trial

Methodology

Assessing patient-centered care in patients with chronic health conditions attending chiropractic practice: protocol for a mixed-methods study

Case report

Spinal myxopapillary ependymoma in an adult male presenting with recurrent acute low back pain: a case report

Case report

Bladder metastasis presenting as neck, arm and thorax pain: a case report

Research

The effectiveness and feasibility of an online educational program for improving evidence-based practice literacy: an exploratory randomized study of US chiropractors