The quality of the research on interreliability and intrareliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable.

No abstract

BackgroundMany health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a systematic review to assess the content validity of spinal palpatory tests used to identify spinal neuro-musculoskeletal dysfunction.MethodsReview of eleven databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed literature, published between 1965–2002, was undertaken. Two blinded reviewers abstracted pertinent data from the retrieved papers, using a specially developed quality-scoring instrument. Five papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.ResultsThree of the five papers included in the review explored the content validity of motion tests. Two of these papers focused on identifying the level of fixation (decreased mobility) and one focused on range of motion. All three studies used a mechanical model as a reference standard. Two of the five papers included in the review explored the validity of pain assessment using the visual analogue scale or the subjects' own report as reference standards. Overall the sensitivity of studies looking at range of motion tests and pain varied greatly. Poor sensitivity was reported for range of motion studies regardless of the examiner's experience. A slightly better sensitivity (82%) was reported in one study that examined cervical pain.ConclusionsThe lack of acceptable reference standards may have contributed to the weak sensitivity findings. Given the importance of spinal palpatory tests as part of the spinal evaluation and treatment plan, effort is required by all involved disciplines to create well-designed and implemented studies in this area.

BackgroundThe optimal retrieval of a literature search in biomedicine depends on the appropriate use of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), descriptors and keywords among authors and indexers. We hypothesized that authors, investigators and indexers in four biomedical databases are not consistent in their use of terminology in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).MethodsBased on a research question addressing the validity of spinal palpation for the diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction, we developed four search concepts with their respective controlled vocabulary and key terms. We calculated the frequency of MeSH, descriptors, and keywords used by authors in titles and abstracts in comparison to standard practices in semantic and analytic indexing in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science.ResultsMultiple searches resulted in the final selection of 38 relevant studies that were indexed at least in one of the four selected databases. Of the four search concepts, validity showed the greatest inconsistency in terminology among authors, indexers and investigators. The use of spinal terms showed the greatest consistency. Of the 22 neuromuscular dysfunction terms provided by the investigators, 11 were not contained in the controlled vocabulary and six were never used by authors or indexers. Most authors did not seem familiar with the controlled vocabulary for validity in the area of neuromuscular dysfunction. Recently, standard glossaries have been developed to assist in the research development of manual medicine.ConclusionsSearching biomedical databases for CAM is challenging due to inconsistent use of controlled vocabulary and indexing procedures in different databases. A standard terminology should be used by investigators in conducting their search strategies and authors when writing titles, abstracts and submitting keywords for publications.

No abstract