Interexaminer reliability of orthopaedic special tests used in the assessment of shoulder pain

Cadogan, Angela; Laslett, Mark; Hing, Wayne; McNair, Peter; Williams, Maynard

doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.07.009

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies (10,11,(13)(14)(15)(16) have provided detail concerning the reliability of categorical decision making Nine tests demonstrated substantial to almost perfect within-and between-session reliability. For withinsession reliability, it is notable that even the lower CIs for most of these tests lie within the substantial range (0.61-0.80) (21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Patients Undergoing Physical Testing Report Pain Intensity Reliably?

White

McNair

Laslett

et al. 2015

Arthritis Care & Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To determine the reliability of patient reports of pain intensity during the application of physical tests. Methods. A single examiner required participants to use the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) to report the intensity of pain provoked during physical testing of the hip. Standardized versions of 14 physical tests were used on 18 people with hip pain. Tests were repeated at 1 hour and 2-7 days later. Within-and between-session reliability of reports of pain intensity was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). Standard errors of measurement (SEMs) were calculated. The average SEM value of 0.9 points on the NPRS was the same for both within-and between-session testing (range 0.6-1.6). Conclusion. Patient reports of the intensity of pain provoked by physical tests are sufficiently reliable to be clinically useful. However, the SEM of 0.9 points should be considered when precise calculations of changes in pain intensity are important.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Patients Undergoing Physical Testing Report Pain Intensity Reliably?

White

McNair

Laslett

et al. 2015

Arthritis Care & Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A smaller width of the CI would have increased the sample size, which was not possible due to practical reasons in the setting (routine care) in which this study was conducted. However, the lower CI of 0.60 still fulfils the requirements for clinical use as proposed by Cadogan et al (2011).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…To our knowledge, no generally accepted classification system for PABAK values exists. PABAK values have been previously interpreted according to Landis and Koch (1977) by Cadogan et al (2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Κ of 0.75 was chosen since representing good reliability according to the classification proposed by Fleiss (1999), but simultaneously substantial strength of agreement according to the classification proposed by Landis and Koch (1977). In addition, a Κ of 0.75 exceeds the requirements for clinical use as proposed by Cadogan et al (2011), and the recommendations from Scholtes et al (2011). The relative width of the CI (lower CI of 0.60 and upper CI of 0.90) was used in order to ensure the feasibility of the study.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if there is no general acceptable level of the Κ coefficient (Atkinson and Nevill, 1998;Bruton et al, 2000;Scholtes et al, 2011), a Κ value of 0.53 seems to be not sufficient for inclusion in a clinical examination according to Cadogan et al (2011), that Κ values of at least 0.60 are required to be considered appropriate for inclusion in a clinical examination. The reliability of symptom alteration tests seems to be especially important, since the validity of most tests of scapular dyskinesis remains questionable due to a lack of direct correlation with symptoms (Kibler et al, 2013b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations