Download PDF
manuelletherapie 2015; 19(01): 45-51
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1545388
Originalia
Literaturstudie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Validität und Reliabilität der lumbalen PPIVM und PAIVM – Ist die Verwendung dieser Tests in der Praxis noch zeitgemäß? [1]

Validity and Reliability of Lumbar PPIVM and PAIVM – Is the Use of these Tests still Up to Date in Practice?
Michaela Neubauer
1   International Maitland Teachers Association
2   FH St. Pölten, Österreich
,
E. Hengeveld
1   International Maitland Teachers Association
,
G. Bucher-Dollenz
1   International Maitland Teachers Association
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 January 2014

07 April 2014

Publication Date:
13 February 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Manualtherapeuten verwenden in der klinischen Praxis regelmäßig Gelenkmobilisationen wie PPIVM und PAIVM für die Untersuchung. Wegen ihrer widersprüchlichen Validitäts- und Reliabilitätswerte stehen sie im Fokus der wissenschaftlichen Kritik.

Dieser Review untersuchte die Praxisrelevanz der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zur Validität und Reliabilität von PPIVM sowie PAIVM und ging der Frage nach, ob diese Techniken aus dem klinischen Alltag entfernt werden sollten.

Im Allgemeinen war die Reliabilität für Symptomreproduktion höher als für intersegmentale Beweglichkeit und die Intratester- besser als die Intertester-Reliabilität. Aufgrund dieser Ergebnisse und der mangelnden Praxisrelevanz einiger Studien besteht kein Grund, lumbale PPIVM und PAIVM aus der Praxis zu entfernen. Zukünftige Untersuchungen sollten umfangreiche Test-Cluster beinhalten.

Abstract

In clinical practice manual therapists regularly use joint mobilisations such as PPIVM and PAIVM during examination. Due to their inconclusive validity and reliability performance they are in the focus of scientific criticism.

This review investigated the practical relevance of the scientific literature concerning the validity and reliability of PPIVM and PAIVM and explored the question whether these techniques should be withdrawn from clinical practice.

In general, the reliability for symptom reproduction was higher than for intersegmental mobility. The intra tester reliability was better than the inter tester reliability. Based on these results and the missing practice relevance of several studies there is no reason to withdraw lumbar PPIVM and PAIVM from practice. Future investigations should include extensive test clusters.

Schlüsselwörter

lumbale Wirbelsäule - Reliabilität - Validität - passive physiologische Bewegungen - Zusatzbewegungen

Keywords

lumbar spine - reliability - validity - passive physiological movements - passive accessory movements
1

1 Die Arbeit wurde im Rahmen der IMTA-Instruktoren-Ausbildung durchgeführt.


 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Abbott JH, Mercer SR. Lumbar segmental hypomobility: Criterion-related validity of clinical examination items (a pilot study). NZ Journal of Physiotherapy 2003; 31: 3-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Abbott JH, McCane B, Herbison P et al. Lumbar segmental instability: a criterion-related validity study of manual therapy assessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2005; 6: 56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Abbott JH, Flynn TW, Fritz JM et al. Manual physical assessment of spinal segmental motion: intent and validity. Man Ther 2009; 14: 36-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Binkley J, Stratford PW, Gill C. Interrater Reliability of Lumbar Accessory Motion Mobility Testing. Phys Ther 1995; 75: 786-792
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boden SD, Wiesel SW. Lumbosacral segmental motion in normal individuals. Have we been measuring instability properly? Spine 1991; 15: 571-575
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bogduk N Unpublished instruments developed in the course of the Australian National Musculoskeletal Medicine Initiative. (Personal communication 2001)
    PubMed
  • 7 Bolton JE, Humphreys BK. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. II. Psychometric properties in neck pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002; 25: 141-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 CASP UK. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme – Making Sense of evidence. 2013 www.casp-uk.net (04.04.2014)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chaitow L. The palpation reliability debate: the experts respond. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 2002; 6: 18-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 De Hertogh WJ, Vaes PH, Vijverman V et al. The clinical examination of neck pain patients: the validity of a group of tests. Man Ther 2007; 12: 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Downey B, Taylor N, Niere K. Can Manipulative Physiotherapists Agree on which Lumbar Level to Treat Based on Palpation?. Physiotherapy 2003; 89: 74-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Chang DG. Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine. Flexion – Extension and lateral bending. Spine 1991; 16: 487-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fritz JM, Piva SR, Childs JD. Accuracy of the clinical examination to predict radiographic instability of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 743-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gonnella C, Paris SV, Kutner M. Reliability in evaluating passive intervertebral motion. Phys Ther 1982; 62: 436-444
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hayes MA, Howard TC, Gruel CR et al. Roentgenographic evaluation of the lumbar spine flexion extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 1989; 14: 327-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A et al. Interrater reliability of clinical examination measures for identification of lumbar segmental instability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 1858-1864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Inscoe EL, Witt PL, Gross MT et al. Reliability of evaluating passive intervertebral motion of the lumbar spine. Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy 1995; 3: 173-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Johansson F. Interexaminer reliability of lumbar segmental mobility tests. Man Ther 2006; 11: 331-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jones MA. Clinical reasoning in manual therapy. Phys Ther 1992; 72: 875-884
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jull G, Treleaven J, Versace G. Manual examination: Is pain provocation a major cue for spinal dysfunction?. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 1994; 40: 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Keating JC. Inter-Examiner Reliability of Motion Palpation of the Lumbar Spine: A Review of Quantitative Literature. Dynamic Chiropractic 1990; 8: 17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maher C, Adams R. Reliability of pain and stiffness assessments in clinical manual lumbar spine examination. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 801-811
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Maitland GD. Vertebral Manipulation. London: Butterworth; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Mannion A, Junge A, Fairbank JC et al. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 55-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Margison FR, McGrath G, Barkham M et al. Measurement and Psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2000; 177: 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 May S, Littlewood C, Bishop A. Reliability of procedures used in the physical examination of non-specific low back pain: A systematic review. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2006; 52: 91-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Panzer DM. The reliability of lumbar motion palpation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15: 518-524
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Phillips DR, Twomey LT. A comparison of manual diagnosis with a diagnosis established by a uni-level lumbar spinal block procedure. Man Ther 1996; 1: 82-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Public Health Resource Unit England. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) making sense of evidence. 10 questions to help you make sense of reviews. 2006 www.sph.nhs.uk/sphfiles/S.Reviews%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf/?searchterm=review (18.02.2011)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schneider G. The Unstable Lumbar Segment Definition and Detection. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy 1993; 1: 67-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Schreiner M. Interrater-Reliabilität passiver physiologischer intervertebraler Bewegungen in der Sagittalebene der LWS. manuelletherapie 2008; 12: 201-205
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Seffinger MA, Najm WI, Adams A et al. Reliability of Spinal Palpation for Diagnosis of Back and Neck Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Spine 2004; 29: E413-E425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shields RK, Leo KC, Miller B et al. An acute care physical therapy clinical practice database for outcomes research. Physical Therapy 1994; 74: 463-470
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Stochkendahl MJ, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J et al. Manual examination of the spine: a systematic critical literature review of reproducibility. J Manip Physiol Ther 2006; 29: 475-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Strender LE, Sjöblom AR, Sundell KR et al. Interexaminer Reliability in Physical Examination of Patients With Low Back Pain. Spine 1997; 22: 814-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Van Trijffel E, Anderegg Q, Bossuyt PM et al. Inter-examiner reliability of passive assessment of intervertebral motion in the cervical and lumbar spine: a systematic review. Man Ther 2005; 10: 256-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3: 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Van der Wurff P, Hagmeijer RH, Meyne W. Clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint. A systematic methodological review. Part 1: Reliability. Man Ther 2000; 5: 30-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Zito G, Jull G, Story I. Clinical tests of musculoskeletal dysfunction in the diagnosis of cervicogenic headache. Man Ther 2006; 11: 118-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar