Interexaminer Reliability of Supine Leg Checks for Discriminating Leg-Length Inequality

Woodfield, H. Charles; Gerstman, B. Burt; Olaisen, R. Henry

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.04.009

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In clinical practice many forms of evidence-based assessment should be used to develop a diagnosis and a treatment/management plan (Jarosz and Ames, 2010;Woodfield et al, 2011). This FKET assessment allows the practitioner to perform a non-weight bearing examination of knee function for the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joint movement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Functional Knee Extension Test (FKET): Inter-rater palpatory agreement and visual analysis during a non-weight bearing functional assessment of the knee

Ames

Jarosz

Baglin

et al. 2015

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woodfield et al (2011) investigated the inter-rater reliability of functional leg-length inequalities in 50 subjects. A tactile and visual assessment of leg length was recorded on a case report form by the examiners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Knee Extension Test (FKET): Inter-rater palpatory agreement and visual analysis during a non-weight bearing functional assessment of the knee

Ames

Jarosz

Baglin

et al. 2015

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Six articles pertaining to the validity of measures of LLI [143-148] and fourteen articles pertaining to the reliability of LLI assessment [106,108,148-159] were retrieved and reviewed. Most of the studies assessed LLI with the subject in the prone position, but some had subjects in the standing or supine position.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hinson et al [152], Woodfield et al [159], Kmita and Lucas [106], and Fryer [156] found supine visual leg checks to show varying degrees of inter-examiner reliability. Cooperstein et al [163] evaluated the validity and reliability of prone compressive leg length assessment using standardized foot wear containing shims of various thicknesses in one shoe.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation.MethodsStructured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation.ResultsA total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement.ConclusionsA considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.

show abstract

“…3 A review of the literature on the reliability and validity of measures used in manual therapy to localize the site of spinal manipulation 4 found varying levels of reliability for supine and prone LLI assessment procedures. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] There was also some support for the validity of measures of supine and prone LLI. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The clinical interpretation of LLI crucially depends on the distinction between anatomic LLI (LLIa), [26][27][28] wherein the legs are measurably of different length, and functional LLI (LLIf), in which the legs are de facto equal in length and yet 1 has been drawn cephalad in some manner (Table 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Supine and Prone Methods of Leg Length Inequality Assessment

Cooperstein

Lucente

2017

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The primary objective of the current study was to determine the reliability between methods of supine and prone leg length inequality (LLI) assessment. The secondary objective was to determine if the degree of examiner confidence affected the degree of intermethod agreement. Methods: Two experienced doctors of chiropractic assessed 43 participants for LLI, one using a prone and the other a supine method. They stated whether they were confident or not confident in their findings. Results: Kappa values for intermethod agreement were 0.16 for the full data set; 0.00 for the n = 20 subgroup with both examiners confident; 0.24 for the n = 18 subgroup with 1 examiner confident; and 0.55 for the n = 5 subgroup with neither examiner confident. Supine and prone measures exhibited slight agreement for the full data set, but no agreement when both examiners were confident. The moderate agreement with both examiners not confident may be an artifact of small sample size. Conclusions: This study found that supine and prone assessments for leg length inequality were not in agreement. Positioning the patient in the prone position may increase, decrease, reverse, or offset the observed LLI that is seen in the supine position. (J Chiropr Med 2017;16:103-110)

show abstract

Interexaminer Reliability of Supine Leg Checks for Discriminating Leg-Length Inequality

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Functional Knee Extension Test (FKET): Inter-rater palpatory agreement and visual analysis during a non-weight bearing functional assessment of the knee

Functional Knee Extension Test (FKET): Inter-rater palpatory agreement and visual analysis during a non-weight bearing functional assessment of the knee

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Comparison of Supine and Prone Methods of Leg Length Inequality Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About