Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for anterior knee instability: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determining diagnostic accuracy of Lachman, pivot shift and anterior drawer tests versus gold standard diagnosis (magnetic resonance imaging or arthroscopy) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency cases. Secondarily, evaluating effects of: chronicity, partial rupture, awake versus anaesthetized evaluation. METHODS: Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed identified studies on diagnostic accuracy for ACL insufficiency. Studies identification and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Quality assessment used QUADAS tool, and statistical analyses were completed for pooled sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Given insufficient data, pooled analysis was only possible for sensitivity on Lachman and pivot shift test. During awake evaluation, sensitivity for the Lachman test was 89 % (95 % CI 0.76, 0.98) for all rupture types, 96 % (95 % CI 0.90, 1.00) for complete ruptures and 68 % (95 % CI 0.25, 0.98) for partial ruptures. For pivot shift in awake evaluation, results were 79 % (95 % CI 0.63, 0.91) for all rupture types, 86 % (95 % CI 0.68, 0.99) for complete ruptures and 67 % (95 % CI 0.47, 0.83) for partial ruptures. CONCLUSION: Decreased sensitivity of Lachman and pivot shift tests for partial rupture cases and for awake patients raised suspicions regarding the accuracy of these tests for diagnosis of ACL insufficiency. This may lead to further research aiming to improve the understanding of the true accuracy of these physical diagnostic tests and increase the reliability of clinical investigation for this pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".