3 results for Aprill, CN

  • Diagnosing painful sacroiliac joints: a validity study of a McKenzie evaluation and sacroiliac provocation tests

    Laslett, M; Young, SB; Aprill, CN; McDonald, B (2011-06-30)

    Journal article
    Auckland University of Technology

    Research suggests that clinical examination of the lumbar spine and pelvis is unable to predict the results of diagnostic injections used as reference standards. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical examination in identifying symptomatic and asymptomatic sacroiliac joints using double diagnostic injections as the reference standard. In a blinded concurrent criterion-related validity design study, 48 patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain referred for diagnostic spinal injection procedures were examined using a specific clinical examination and received diagnostic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections. The centralisation and peripheralisation phenomena were used to identify possible discogenic pain and the results from provocation sacroiliac joint tests were used as part of the clinical reasoning process. Eleven patients had sacroiliac joint pain confirmed by double diagnostic injection. Ten of the 11 sacroiliac joint patients met clinical examination criteria for having sacroiliac joint pain. In the primary subset analysis of 34 patients, sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio (95% confidence intervals) of the clinical evaluation were 91% (62 to 98), 83% (68 to 96) and 6.97 (2.70 to 20.27) respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and clinical reasoning process was superior to the sacroiliac joint pain provocation tests alone. A specific clinical examination and reasoning process can differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic sacroiliac joints.

    View record details
  • Zygapophysial joint blocks in chronic low back pain: a test of Revel's model as a screening test

    Laslett, M; Oberg, B; Aprill, CN; McDonald, B (2011-06-30)

    Journal article
    Auckland University of Technology

    Background: Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks.Methods: This study utilized a prospective blinded concurrent reference standard related validity design. Consecutive chronic LBP patients completed pain drawings, psychosocial distress and disability questionnaires, received a clinical examination and lumbar zygapophysial blocks. Two reference standards were evaluated simultaneously: 1.75% reduction of pain on a visual analogue scale (replication of previous work), and 2. abolition of the dominant or primary pain. Using "Revel's criteria" as predictors, logistic regression analyses were used to test the model. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for selected variables were calculated for the two proposed clinical strategies.Results: Earlier results were not replicated. Sensitivity of "Revel's criteria" was low sensitivity ( are unsuitable as a clinical screening test to select chronic LBP patients for initial ZJ blocks. However, the criteria may have use in identifying a small subset (11%) of patients likely to respond to the initial block (specificity 93%).

    View record details
  • Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain

    Laslett, M; McDonald, B; Tropp, H; Aprill, CN; Oberg, B (2011-06-30)

    Journal article
    Auckland University of Technology

    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.

    View record details