Intertester Reliability of the McKenzie Evaluation in Assessing Patients With Mechanical Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective intertester reliability study investigating the ability of 2 therapists to agree on a low back pain diagnosis using examination techniques and the classification system described by McKenzie. OBJECTIVES: To investigate intertester agreement in determining McKenzie diagnostic syndromes, subsyndromes, presence, and relevance of the spinal deformities. BACKGROUND: Reliability of the McKenzie approach for determining diagnostic categories is unclear. Previous studies have been characterized by inconsistency of test protocols, criterion measures, and level of training of the examiners, which confounds the interpretation of results. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 kappa = 0.70, and for the derangement subsyndromes was kappa = 0.96. Interrater agreement for presence of lateral shift, relevance of lateral shift, relevance of lateral component, and deformity in sagittal plane was kappa = 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 kapp = 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".