Background: Elbow traumas represent a relatively common condition in clinical practice. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the most accurate tests for screening these potentially serious conditions and excluding elbow fractures. The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the literature concerning the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the detection or exclusion of suspected elbow fractures.Methods: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Literature databases including PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Cochrane, the Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies of subjects with suspected traumatic elbow fracture investigating clinical tests compared to imaging reference tests. The risk of bias in each study was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 checklist.Results: Twelve studies (n=4,485 patients) were included. Three different types of index tests were extracted. In adults, these tests were very sensitive, with values up to 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0–99.8). The specificity was very variable, ranging from 24.0% (95% CI, 19.0–30.0) to 69.4% (95% CI, 57.3–79.5). The applicability of these tests was very high, while overall studies showed a medium risk of bias.Conclusions: Elbow full rom test, elbow extension test, and elbow extension and point tenderness test appear to be useful in the presence of a negative test to exclude fracture in a majority of cases. The specificity of all tests, however, does not allow us to draw useful conclusions because there was a great variability of results obtained.

OBJECTIVE: To translate, culturally adapt, and validate the psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the Dance Functional Outcome Survey (DFOS-IT) in adult dancers. DESIGN: Clinical measurement study. METHODS: The DFOS-IT was forward translated, reconciled, backward translated, and reviewed by an expert committee to establish optimal correspondence with the original English DFOS. We examined test-retest reliability in 58 dancers within a 10-day period, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1). In a sample of 265 healthy and injured dancers, the following were examined: 1) construct validity, comparing the DFOS-IT to SF-36 using Pearson correlations; 2) exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency; and 3) sensitivity, by generating receiver operating characteristic curves and determining area under the curve (AUC). In a subgroup of 44 dancers, we determined internal responsiveness across three time-points using repeated measures ANOVA (p<0.05). Injured dancers’ scores were analyzed for floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The DFOS-IT demonstrated very high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.98). Single-factor loading in exploratory factor analysis supported unidimensionality of the scale, with high internal consistency (a=0.93). DFOS-IT total, activities of daily living (ADL), and Dance Technique scores had strong construct validity compared with scores on the SF-36 PCS (r=0.71). There was excellent sensitivity, with high AUC values (AUC=0.80). There were significant differences across time for DFOS-IT scores (p<0.001), demonstrating responsiveness to change, and no floor or ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: The DFOS-IT is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool that can be used as an outcome and screening measure for Italian adult ballet and modern dancers following lower extremity or low back injury.