Inter-rater reliability of McKenzie assessment in patients with neck pain

Dionne, Carol P.; Bybee, Ronald F.; Tomaka, Joe

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2005.12.003

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[16][17][18][19][20] These have been conducted either using 50 and 45 real patients with one clinician observing and one assessing, 18,19 or 2 adjacent examinations of 39 patients, 16 or 50 clinicians assessing 50 paper vignettes on standard assessment forms, 17 or 54 clinicians assessing 20 videotaped examinations. 20 Different study designs have relative strengths. Using real patients allows interpretation of clinical interactions more easily than paper vignettes, but this latter method of testing reliability allows worldwide delivery to a large number of clinicians more easily.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The McKenzie Classification System in the Extremities: A Reliability Study Using Mckenzie Assessment Forms and Experienced Clinicians

May

Ross

2009

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The McKenzie Classification System in the Extremities: A Reliability Study Using Mckenzie Assessment Forms and Experienced Clinicians

May

Ross

2009

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Clare et al found reliability among physical therapists with these levels of training in classifying patients with the MDT system. 3,10 Research also…”

Section: Physical Therapistsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…1 Approximately 50-70% of the population has experienced neck pain in the past 6 months. 2,3 Influencing factors of neck pain may include poor posture, muscle sprains, injuries resulting from sporting or occupational activities, or psychological factors such as anxiety or depression. 4,5 Neck pain commonly arises insidiously and is generally multifactorial in nature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of outcomes for patients with centralising versus non-centralising neck pain

Rose

Butler

Salinas

et al. 2016

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to determine whether individuals with neck pain who demonstrate centralisation of symptoms have more favourable outcome than individuals who do not demonstrate centralisation.Eleven subjects with neck pain were evaluated and treated by two physical therapists certified in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT). Eleven physical therapy patients underwent a routine initial evaluation and were treated 2-3 times per week using MDT principles and other physical therapy interventions. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) tool was administered at the initial examination, approximately 2 weeks following the initial examination, each subsequent re-evaluation, and at discharge from the study to measure changes in functional outcomes for each subject. Patients continued with treatments until they were discharged or removed from the study. Four subjects were referred back to their physician by treating physical therapist secondary to non-centralisation (NC) and worsening of symptoms.Of the 11 subjects, six demonstrated centralisation (CEN) and five demonstrated NC. At initial evaluation, the average NDI score for the CEN group was 51.0 (SD + 19.4) and 56.4 (SD + 17.6) for the NC group. For the CEN group, the average change in NDI score between initial evaluation and discharge was 41.2 (SD+13.2 and 12.2 (SD+13.0) for the NC group. The correlation coefficient of CEN and change in NDI score was 0.772 and was statistically significant (P50.005).In this limited sample, people with neck pain demonstrated more favourable outcomes when the CEN phenomenon was observed. Future research on CEN should be investigated with a larger sample size and with a greater number of clinicians trained in the MDT approach.

show abstract

“…Dionne et al 21 reported clinicians trained in MDT demonstrated inter-rater agreement (k50.46, 86% agreement) for directional preference, and in a subsequent study, moderate agreement (k50.55, P,0.001) when classifying patients according to neck pain. 22 Conversely, Fjellner et al…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical decision-making in the management of cervical spine derangement: a case study survey using a patient vignette

Hahn

Kelly

Murphy

et al. 2013

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of this study suggest that PTs with post-graduate training through the McKenzie Institute or through Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) Fellowship training may demonstrate an inherent bias toward their advanced training in the assessment and treatment of acute cervical derangement. Although no significant findings can be reported secondary to sample size limitations, future studies may be performed to further explore this topic.

show abstract

Inter-rater reliability of McKenzie assessment in patients with neck pain

Cited by 18 publications

References 35 publications

The McKenzie Classification System in the Extremities: A Reliability Study Using Mckenzie Assessment Forms and Experienced Clinicians

The McKenzie Classification System in the Extremities: A Reliability Study Using Mckenzie Assessment Forms and Experienced Clinicians

Measurement of outcomes for patients with centralising versus non-centralising neck pain

Clinical decision-making in the management of cervical spine derangement: a case study survey using a patient vignette

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About