↓ Skip to main content

Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2003
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-3-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wadie I Najm, Michael A Seffinger, Shiraz I Mishra, Vivian M Dickerson, Alan Adams, Sibylle Reinsch, Linda S Murphy, Arnold F Goodman

Abstract

Many health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a systematic review to assess the content validity of spinal palpatory tests used to identify spinal neuro-musculoskeletal dysfunction. Review of eleven databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed literature, published between 1965-2002, was undertaken. Two blinded reviewers abstracted pertinent data from the retrieved papers, using a specially developed quality-scoring instrument. Five papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three of the five papers included in the review explored the content validity of motion tests. Two of these papers focused on identifying the level of fixation (decreased mobility) and one focused on range of motion. All three studies used a mechanical model as a reference standard. Two of the five papers included in the review explored the validity of pain assessment using the visual analogue scale or the subjects' own report as reference standards. Overall the sensitivity of studies looking at range of motion tests and pain varied greatly. Poor sensitivity was reported for range of motion studies regardless of the examiner's experience. A slightly better sensitivity (82%) was reported in one study that examined cervical pain. The lack of acceptable reference standards may have contributed to the weak sensitivity findings. Given the importance of spinal palpatory tests as part of the spinal evaluation and treatment plan, effort is required by all involved disciplines to create well-designed and implemented studies in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Other 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 29 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2020.
All research outputs
#14,807,732
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,837
of 3,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,377
of 50,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 50,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.