Reliability of the Lumbar Flexion, Lumbar Extension, and Passive Straight Leg Raise Test in Normal Populations Embedded Within a Complete Physical Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The study measured the reliability of the passive straight leg raise (SLR) test and lumbar range of motion (LROM) tests measured as continuous variables embedded within a comprehensive physical examination. OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of the SLR and LROM test scores when they are measured with a Cybex electronic inclinometer (Lumex, Inc., New York, NY) within a physical examination. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Good published empirical reliability exists for the Cybex and for SLR and LROM tests when the measurements are taken in isolation from other physical examination procedures. Reliability of the Cybex for continuous SLR and LROM measurement within a physical examination has not been assessed, however. METHODS: Forty-five participants were seen by one of two physician/physiotherapist teams. Participants were examined by both team members. The first examiner conducted the first tests and retested 1 week later (intrarater reliability). The second examined the participants the day after their first appointment (inter-rater reliability). RESULTS: Only two scores showed substantial reliability (defined as r > or = 0.60). These scores were left (r = 0.81) and right (r = 0.79) SLR intrarater reliability. All other scores fell below the specified cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: SLR and LROM scores used clinically are collected during comprehensive physical examinations. Most scores gathered under these conditions were not reliable. These findings have implications for the use of clinically derived SLR and LROM scores.
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".