Interexaminer Reliability of the Hip Extension Test for Suspected Impaired Motor Control of the Lumbar Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The hip extension test may be a clinical sign of impaired motor control in the lumbar spine, which may have a negative impact on spine stability. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the interexaminer reliability of the hip extension test for suspected dynamic instability of the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Forty-two patients with chronic low back pain participated in this interexaminer reliability study. Chronic low back pain was defined as pain of greater than 7 weeks duration in the area between T12 and the buttocks, with or without leg pain. Two doctors of chiropractic simultaneously observed and independently assessed the left and right prone hip extension test on all 42 patients. Results for both examiners were given to an independent recorder. Each examiner was blinded to the results of the other examiner. RESULTS: The mean age of subjects was 38 years (SD 12.35); 73.8% were female. Sixty-eight percent (SD 1.72) reported current back pain intensity greater than 5 on an 11-point numerical rating scale. The mean score for the Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability questionnaire was 5.8 (SD 4.34). The kappa measure of agreement was 0.72 for the left leg and 0.76 for the right leg. This indicated a substantial strength of agreement between examiners for both left and right hip extension tests. For the 8 cases of disagreement, rater 1 generally rated the tests as positive, whereas rater 2 consistently rated the tests as negative. CONCLUSIONS: The hip extension test appears to have good reliability in detecting deviation of the lumbar spine from the midline. Validity with regard to the test's ability to distinguish patients with chronic low back pain from normal individuals and its relation to lumbar spine stability remains to be determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".