ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Sacroiliac dysfunction is characterized by a hypomobility of the range of motion of the joint, followed by a positional change regarding the relationship between the sacrum and the iliac. In general, the clinical tests that evaluate the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and its dysfunctions lack validity and reliability values. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to evaluate the construct validity and intra- and inter-rater reliability of the standing flexion test (STFT) and sitting flexion test (SIFT). METHODS: In this prospective study, the sample consisted of 30 individuals of both sexes, and the evaluation team was composed of five researchers. The evaluations took place on two different days: first day, inter-rater reliability and construct validity; and second day, intra-rater reliability. The reference standard for the construct validity was 3-dimensional measurements obtained utilizing the BTS SMART-DX system. For statistical analysis, the percentage (%) agreement and the kappa statistic (K) were utilized. RESULTS: The construct validity was determined for STFT (70% agreement; K=0.49; p<0.01) and SIFT (56.7% agreement; K=0.29; p<0.05). The intra-rater reliability was determined for STFT (66.3% agreement; K=0.43; p<0.01) and SIFT (56.7% agreement; K=0.38; p<0.01). The inter-rater reliability was determined for STFT (10% agreement; K=-0.02; p=0.825) and SIFT (13.3% agreement; K=0.01; p=0.836). CONCLUSIONS: The STFT confirmed the construct validity and was reliable when applied by the same rater to healthy people, even if the rater had no experience. It was not possible to achieve minimum scores using the SIFT either for construct validity or reliability. We suggest that further studies be conducted to investigate the measurement properties of palpatory clinical tests for SIJ mobility, especially in symptomatic patients.
Subject(s)
Physical Examination , Sitting Position , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Range of Motion, Articular , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the reliability and validity of palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility. The secondary objective was to investigate which palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility exist in the literature. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched. There was no restriction on the study design or participants. The data extracted from each study were sample size, study deign, and clinical test used. If there was information on reliability values, number of examiners, concurrent validity values, gold standard used, or inferential statistical test used, that was also extracted. For intraexaminer reliability, the data were expressed as κ values that were meta-analyzed using random effects. RESULTS: Fifteen palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility were identified from 28 studies; 14 studies performed inferential statistical analysis, all including analysis of interexaminer reliability, with κ values ranging from -0.05 to 0.77. Analysis of intraexaminer reliability was performed in 8 studies, with κ values ranging from 0.08 to 0.73. No study included in this systematic review verified the concurrent validity of the tests. Our meta-analysis of intraexaminer reliability showed moderate to good agreement results for the Gillet test (κâ¯=â¯0.46), the standing flexion test (κâ¯=â¯0.61), and the sitting flexion test (κâ¯=â¯0.68). CONCLUSION: We found 15 palpatory clinical tests of sacroiliac mobility in this systematic review. According to our meta-analysis, only the sitting flexion test obtained a good and statistically significant intraexaminer agreement. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the reliability and validity of these tests.
