liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: A prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Department of Health and Society, Division of Physiotherapy.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Neuroscience and Locomotion, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Orthopaedic Centre, Department of Orthopaedics Linköping.
Show others and affiliations
2005 (English)In: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, ISSN 1471-2474, Vol. 6Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The tissue origin of low back pain (LBP) or referred lower extremity symptoms (LES) may be identified in about 70% of cases using advanced imaging, discography and facet or sacroiliac joint blocks. These techniques are invasive and availability varies. A clinical examination is non-invasive and widely available but its validity is questioned. Diagnostic studies usually examine single tests in relation to single reference standards, yet in clinical practice, clinicians use multiple tests and select from a range of possible diagnoses. There is a need for studies that evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical diagnoses against available reference standards. Methods: We compared blinded clinical diagnoses with diagnoses based on available reference standards for known causes of LBP or LES such as discography, facet, sacroiliac or hip joint blocks, epidurals injections, advanced imaging studies or any combination of these tests. A prospective, blinded validity design was employed. Physiotherapists examined consecutive patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain and/or referred LES scheduled to receive the reference standard examinations. When diagnoses were in complete agreement regardless of complexity, "exact" agreement was recorded. When the clinical diagnosis was included within the reference standard diagnoses, "clinical agreement" was recorded. The proportional chance criterion (PCC) statistic was used to estimate agreement on multiple diagnostic possibilities because it accounts for the prevalence of individual categories in the sample. The kappa statistic was used to estimate agreement on six pathoanatomic diagnoses. Results: In a sample of chronic LBP patients (n = 216) with high levels of disability and distress, 67% received a patho-anatomic diagnosis based on available reference standards, and 10% had more than one tissue origin of pain identified. For 27 diagnostic categories and combinations, chance clinical agreement (PCC) was estimated at 13%. "Exact" agreement between clinical and reference standard diagnoses was 32% and "clinical agreement" 51%. For six pathoanatomic categories (disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, hip joint, nerve root and spinal stenosis), PCC was 33% with actual agreement 56%. There was no overlap of 95% confidence intervals on any comparison. Diagnostic agreement on the six most common patho-anatomic categories produced a kappa of 0.31. Conclusion: Clinical diagnoses agree with reference standards diagnoses more often than chance. Using available reference standards, most patients can have a tissue source of pain identified. © 2005 Laslett et al, licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 6
National Category
Social Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-33403DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-28Local ID: 19422OAI: diva2:254226
Available from: 2009-10-09 Created: 2009-10-09 Last updated: 2011-01-12

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Laslett, MarkTropp, HansÖberg, Birgitta
By organisation
Faculty of Health SciencesDivision of PhysiotherapyOrthopaedics and Sports MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedics LinköpingCentre for Public Health Sciences
In the same journal
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 52 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link