ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Observational inter-rater reliability study. OBJECTIVES: To examine: (1) the inter-rater reliability of a modified version of Delitto et al.'s classification-based algorithm for patients with low back pain; (2) the influence of different levels of familiarity with the system; and (3) the inter-rater reliability of algorithm decisions in patients who clearly fit into a subgroup (clear classifications) and those who do not (unclear classifications). METHODS: Patients were examined twice on the same day by two of three participating physical therapists with different levels of familiarity with the system. Patients were classified into one of four classification groups. Raters were blind to the others' classification decision. In order to quantify the inter-rater reliability, percentages of agreement and Cohen's Kappa were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were included (clear classification nâ=â23; unclear classification nâ=â13). The overall rate of agreement was 53% and the Kappa value was 0·34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0·11-0·57], which indicated only fair inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability for patients with a clear classification (agreement 52%, Kappa value 0·29) was not higher than for patients with an unclear classification (agreement 54%, Kappa value 0·33). Familiarity with the system (i.e. trained with written instructions and previous research experience with the algorithm) did not improve the inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study challenges the inter-rater reliability of the classification procedure in clinical practice. Therefore, more knowledge is needed about factors that affect the inter-rater reliability, in order to improve the clinical applicability of the classification scheme.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort, test-retest design. BACKGROUND: Directional preference (DP) with centralization (CEN) and DP without CEN are common pain-pattern responses assessed by Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT). Although there is evidence that MDT can reduce pain and disability in the short term by treating the patient with direction-specific exercises concordant with the patient's DP, the mechanism responsible for this is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinical signs of impaired spinal control improve immediately after eliciting a DP-with-CEN response or a DP-without-CEN response in patients with nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: Participants underwent a standardized MDT assessment and were classified into the following pain-pattern subgroups: DP with CEN, DP without CEN, or no DP. Clinical signs of impaired spinal control were assessed pre-MDT assessment and post-MDT assessment by an independent examiner. Four spinal control tests were conducted: aberrant lumbar movements while bending forward, the active straight leg raise (ASLR) test, the Trendelenburg test, and the prone instability test. Differences in spinal control pre-MDT assessment and post-MDT assessment were calculated for the 3 pain-pattern subgroups and compared with chi-square tests. We hypothesized that a larger proportion of patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup would exhibit improved spinal control than patients categorized as DP without CEN or no DP. RESULTS: Of 114 patients recruited, 51 patients (44.7%) were categorized as DP with CEN, 23 (20.2%) as DP without CEN, and 40 (35.1%) as no DP. Before MDT assessment, between 28.9% (Trendelenburg test) and 63.7% (ASLR test) of patients showed impaired spinal control. After MDT assessment, a larger proportion of patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup (43%) showed improvement than those in the no-DP subgroup (7%) on aberrant lumbar movements (P = .02). Likewise, more patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup (50%) improved on the ASLR test than those in the no-DP subgroup (8%, P<.01) or the DP-without-CEN subgroup (7%, P = .01). Changes in Trendelenburg test and prone instability test outcomes did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Immediately following MDT assessment, a larger proportion of patients with a DP-with-CEN pain pattern showed improvement in clinical signs of spinal control compared to patients with a DP-without-CEN or no-DP pain pattern. The current study was registered in the Dutch trial registry at http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp (NTR4246). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b.
