2015
DOI: 10.1212/cpj.0000000000000155
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The plantar reflex

Abstract: The utility of the plantar reflex in modern neurology is controversial. We studied the Babinski, Chaddock, and Oppenheim reflexes in terms of intraobserver, interobserver, and intertest agreement; sensitivity; positive predictive value (PPV); and observer bias. Sixty-two patients and 1,984 reflexes were analyzed. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were weak (median κ <0.4). Intertest agreement was weak (median κ < 0.4) for all paired reflexes, although highest for the Babinski/Chaddock (0.30) ( < 0.05).… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One experienced spine surgeon (KO) performed the neurologic examinations to evaluate the finger flexion reflexes (i.e., Hoffmann's sign [22], Trömner's sign [30], and Wartenberg's sign [31]); patellar tendon reflex (PTR); Achilles tendon reflex (ATR); ankle clonus [38]; and the pathological reflexes (i.e., Babinski's sign [32] and Chaddock's sign [33]). The finger flexion reflex was considered positive when flexion of the thumb was observed.…”
Section: Objective Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One experienced spine surgeon (KO) performed the neurologic examinations to evaluate the finger flexion reflexes (i.e., Hoffmann's sign [22], Trömner's sign [30], and Wartenberg's sign [31]); patellar tendon reflex (PTR); Achilles tendon reflex (ATR); ankle clonus [38]; and the pathological reflexes (i.e., Babinski's sign [32] and Chaddock's sign [33]). The finger flexion reflex was considered positive when flexion of the thumb was observed.…”
Section: Objective Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With over 30 surrogate or substitute signs for the original Babinski sign 4 , it has become a common rite of passage in some centers to test trainees on how many signs they can remember. Despite their widespread use as markers of corticospinal disease, their diagnostic yield remains and their sensitivity for detecting pyramidal tract dysfunction and inter observer agreement remains low 5 . Thus, regardless of the eponym remembered when eliciting the plantar response, it is paramount to interpret it in the patient's context and not in isolation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%