Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Intertester reliability of the McKenzie evaluation in assessing patients with mechanical low back pain. (Sunny Brook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2000;30:368–389. In this study, patients were assessed simultaneously by 2 physical therapists trained in the McKenzie evaluation system. The therapists were randomly assigned as examiner and observer. Agreement was estimated by Kappa statistics. Forty‐five subjects (47 ± 14 years), composed of 25 women and 20 men with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain were examined. The agreement between raters for selection of the McKenzie syndromes was K = 0.70, and for the derangement subsyndromes was K = 0.96. Interrater agreement for the presence of lateral shift, relevance of lateral shift, relevance of lateral component, and deformity in the sagittal plane was K = 0.52, 0.85, 0.95, and 1.00, respectively. Intertester agreement on syndrome categories in 17 patients under 55 years of age was excellent with K = 1.00. Conclude that a form of low back evaluation, using patterns of pain response to repeated end range spinal test movements, was highly reliable when performed by 2 properly trained physical therapists. Comment by Karen Crawford, RPT. This article intends to address the ability for therapists to agree on a low back pain diagnosis using the McKenzie technique of classification. It is important for this study to select a clear clinical diagnosis in order to establish rationale for patient management and determine a prognosis. Another purpose for this study was to agree on the relevance of sagittal and frontal plane deformities using McKenzie methods in assessing patients with back pain. The subjects included adult patients with a history of acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain. Patients were referred by general practitioners or specialists for treatment at an outpatient department where the study was conducted. The examination consisted of taking a history, observational evaluation of the range of motion, and completion of a specified tests movements in the sagittal, frontal, and combined planes. Subjects were allowed to communicate only with the assessor. A total of 46 patients with a history of low back pain agreed to complete the assessment. Patients were divided into 2 groups, those 55 years of age and older and those younger than 55. McKenzie identifies only 3 mechanical syndromes: 1. Postural, 2. Dysfunction, 3. Derangement. Each of these syndromes were divided into separate subsyndromes according to location of the pain and presence or absence of spinal deformities. The study concluded that therapists trained in use of the McKenzie evaluation system can be highly reliable in reaching the same conclusion in respect to classifying patients into diagnostic syndromes and subsyndromes, especially in patients under the age of 55. In contrast to other published studies, the importance of advanced training for interpretation of symptom behavior definitely leads to selection of the correct diagnosis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».