Clinical Hip Tests and a Functional Squat Test in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Reliability, Prevalence of Positive Test Findings, and Short-Term Response to Hip Mobilization

Cliborne, Amy V; Wainner, Robert S.; Rhon, Daniel I.; Judd, Coy D.; Fee, Terrance T.; Matekel, Robert L.; Whitman, Julie M.

doi:10.2519/jospt.2004.34.11.676

Cited by 57 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For withinsession reliability, it is notable that even the lower CIs for most of these tests lie within the substantial range (0.61-0.80) (21). These findings are remarkably similar to those reported by Cliborne et al (17) despite the fact that the time interval between test sessions in their study was only 2 minutes compared to 60 minutes in the current study. Short intervals between test sessions increase the likelihood of the participant remembering their previous scores and consequently, overestimation of reliability (22).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…The reliability of physical tests based on whether or not pain is provoked (a categorical yes or no decision) has been investigated in numerous regions of the body (10-16) but, to our knowledge, only 1 study (17) has examined the reliability of reports of pain intensity associated with pain provocation tests. In this study, 4 tests for the hip were applied to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Patients Undergoing Physical Testing Report Pain Intensity Reliably?

White

McNair

Laslett

et al. 2015

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To determine the reliability of patient reports of pain intensity during the application of physical tests. Methods. A single examiner required participants to use the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) to report the intensity of pain provoked during physical testing of the hip. Standardized versions of 14 physical tests were used on 18 people with hip pain. Tests were repeated at 1 hour and 2-7 days later. Within-and between-session reliability of reports of pain intensity was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). Standard errors of measurement (SEMs) were calculated. The average SEM value of 0.9 points on the NPRS was the same for both within-and between-session testing (range 0.6-1.6). Conclusion. Patient reports of the intensity of pain provoked by physical tests are sufficiently reliable to be clinically useful. However, the SEM of 0.9 points should be considered when precise calculations of changes in pain intensity are important.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Patients Undergoing Physical Testing Report Pain Intensity Reliably?

White

McNair

Laslett

et al. 2015

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20,43 There have been only few published reports on the intrarater and interrater reliability of examination procedures for the hip. 8 Intrarater and interrater reliability of the Ober test 36,46 and hip range-of-motion measures 3,9,16,22,28 have been reported to be good to excellent. Similarly, the FABER test has been found to have moderate to substantial interrater reliability in causing reproduction of symptoms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interrater Reliability of 4 Clinical Tests Used to Assess Individuals With Musculoskeletal Hip Pain

Martin

Sekiya²

2008

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY DESIGN:Descriptive and reliability study. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the interrater reliability of the FABER test, flexion-internal rotationadduction impingement test, log roll test, and the palpation of the greater trochanter for tenderness. BACKGROUND:Clinical examination for individuals with musculoskeletal hip pain is believed to provide critical diagnostic information. However, there is very limited information in the literature on the reproducibility of examination techniques for the hip region. METHODS AND MEASURES: Seventy subjectswere evaluated prospectively by an orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist. Subjects had a mean age of 42 years (range, 18-76 years; SD, 15.4) and included 32 (46%) females and 38 (54%) males. Subject diagnoses were as follows: degenerative joint disease (n = 27 [39% of subjects]), labral tear (n = 35 [50% of subjects]), femoroacetabular impingement (n = 48 [69% of subjects]), capsular laxity (n = 28 [40% of subjects]), trochanteric bursitis (n = 29 [41% of subjects]), iliopsoas tendonitis (n = 10 [14% of subjects]), and adductor strain (n = 2 [3% of subjects]). Subjects could have more than 1 diagnosis. Kappa, prevalence indexes, bias indexes, and maximal attainable kappa were calculated. RESULTS:Kappa ( ) coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were as follows: FABER test was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.43-0.83); flexion-internal rotation-adduction impingement test was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.29-0.87); log roll test was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41-0.81); and greater trochanteric tenderness was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.48-0.84). Bias indexes were low (0.06-0.08) for all 4 tests, while prevalence indexes were low (0.03-0.37) for 3 of the 4 tests. The flexion-internal rotation-adduction impingement test had a high prevalence index (0.76), with a higher proportion of positive tests. CONCLUSION:The kappa values for the FABER test, log roll test, and assessment of greater trochanteric tenderness were greater than 0.40 (fair level of agreement) at a 95% confidence level. The low reliability obtained for the flexion-internal rotation-adduction impingement test may be related to a prevalence concern.

show abstract

“…However, joint mobilization is commonly used for patients with hip osteoarthritis to reduce pain and improve movement. 4,18 Osteoarthritis is the most common type of arthritis and affects 21 million people in the United States. 17 Currently, hip osteoarthritis occurs in 3% to 6% of all adults.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%