Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE

KCE Reports 119 Non-Specific Neck Pain: diagnosis and treatment 55
APPENDIX 5: EVIDENCE TABLE OF INCLUDED PUBLICATIONS DIAGNOSIS AND
PROGNOSIS
Reference cochrane code date of
medium (4,5) or high publication
(>6) max=7
or
Quadas code
medium (7 ‐9) or
high (>10) max=14
Bjorksten, M.G., et al., The validity of
reported musculoskeletal problems. A study
of questionnaire answers in relation to
diagnosed disorders and perception of pain.
Applied Ergonomics, 1999. 30(4): p. 325‐330.
De Hertogh, W.J., et al., The clinical
examination of neck pain patients: The
validity of a group of tests. Manual Therapy,
2007. 12(1): p. 50‐55.
Rubinstein, S.M., et al., A systematic review
of the diagnostic accuracy of provocative tests
of the neck for diagnosing cervical
radiculopathy. European Spine Journal, 2007.
16(3): p. 307‐319.
5
high (12 on Quadas) 1999 To evaluate the validity of
answers given in a questionnaire
on musculoskeletal pain and
conditions by means of a clinical
assessment, and to get some
understanding of the subject's
perception of reported pain.
high (10 on Quadas) 2007 To evaluate wether a blinded
observer could identify the neck
pain patients in a sample of 42
subjects consisting of neck pain
patients and asymptomatic
controls.
high (7 on Cochrane) 2007 A systematic review in order to
assess the diagnostic accuracy of
clinical provocative tests of the
neck.
objective included studies last search patients intervention outcome extraction data/
results
Not relevant for this study. Not relevant for this study. n=171 questionnaire
Clinical assessment
VAS and pain drawings
1. Davidson, 1981 USA
2. Quinter, 1989 Australia
3. Shah, 2004 India
4. Tong, 2002 USA
5. Viikari‐Juntura, 1989
Finland
6. Wainner, 2003 USA
sensitivity and
specificity data from
the questionnaires
and the clinical
diagnosis
Not relevant for this study. n=42 Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ) senitivity and
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
specificity of the
Manual examination procedures
(rotation C0‐2‐7, rated range of motion,
end feel, onset of pain)
Spurling test
Cervical Range of Motion Device
tests
is not reported all Clinical provocative tests of the neck Diagnostic accuracy
studies
together
n=693
of the tests
sensitivity and specificity of questionnaire concerning
musculoskeletal pain/ailments of the neck/shoulders the last
3 months, the last 7 days and currently, compared with a
clinical examination.
3 m 7m currently
sens. spec. sens. spec. sens. spec.
Neck/shoulders 100 22 97 41 95 88
Predictive value for current pain is 68,9%.
conclusion of the author
The results of this study confirm the
validity of the subjective reports of the
respondents. A 'pain assessment
instrument' including a questionnaire,
VAS and pain drawings may be useful to
reveal conditions in the neck and the
shoulders and thoracic spine, common
sites of work related musculoskeletal
disorders.
VAS and BQ had 77,5% correct allocations and a high The findings reinforce the validity of
specificity of 90,9%. The manual examination procedures MEPs. Clustering pain measurements, BQ
have similar results. The combination of the VAS score, BQ and MEPs provides the highest diagnostic
and mEPs resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and value to identify neck pain patients or
86,4%, respectively. Exept for the flexion movement all CROM necks in need of treatment.
allocation percentages are around 50%.
Spurling's test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and
specificity, as did individual studies for traction/neck
distraction and the Vasalva's manoeuvre. On the other hand
the two studies which investigated the ULTT demonstrated
high sensitivity and low specificity , while the three studies
for the shoulder abduciton test demonstrated low to
moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity.
A positive Spurling's test, traction/neck
distraction, and Vasalvas manoeuvre
might be indicative of a cervical
radiculopathy, while a negative ULTT
might be used to rule it out. However,
the lack of evidence precludes any firm
conclusions rgarding their diagnostic
value, especially when used in primary
care. More high quality studies are
necessary in order to resolve this issue.