Specificity, sensitivity, and predictive values of clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint: a systematic review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine which physical examination tests have the highest sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for determining the presence of sacroiliac joint injuries and/or dysfunction when compared with the gold standard of a sacroiliac joint block. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the literature was conducted for articles that evaluated clinical sacroiliac joint tests for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value when compared to sacroiliac joint block. The search was conducted using several online databases: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, AMED, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Reference and journal searching and contact with several experts in the area was also employed. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies selected for inclusion were evaluated with a data extraction sheet and assessed for methodological quality using an assessment tool based on accepted principles of evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Article results were compared, no attempt to formally combine the results into a meta-analysis was made. RESULTS: Seven papers were identified for inclusion in the review, two of which dealt with the same study, thus six studies were to be assessed although one paper could not be obtained. The most recently published article had the highest methodological quality. Study designs rarely incorporated randomized, placebo controlled, double blinded study designs or confirmatory sacroiliac joint blocks. There was considerable inconsistency between studies in design and outcome measurement, making comparison difficult. Five tests were found to have sensitivity and specificity over 60% each in at least one study with at least moderately high methodological quality. Using several tests and requiring a minimum number to be positive yielded adequate sensitivity and specificity for identifying sacroiliac joint injury when compared with sacroiliac joint block. CONCLUSION: Practitioners may consider using the distraction test, compression test, thigh thrust/posterior shear, sacral thrust, and resisted hip abduction as these were the only tests to have specificity and sensitivity greater than 60% in at least one study. Further research using improved methodology is required to determine the optimal tests and combinations of tests to identify sacroiliac joint injuries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".