Reliabilität klinischer Wirbelsäulenbewegungsmaße bei Probanden

Uhlemann, Chr.; Schreiber, Tobias; Sarafowa, A.

doi:10.1055/s-2001-18152

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With changes in the measurement procedure the goal was a more accurate display of the lumbar spine, lumbosacral junction and the lumbar mobility. Even though clinically the modified Schober test has shown good correlation with spinal movement in asymptomatic patients 11 and has partly displayed excellent inter-tester reliability 16 . Evidence shows growing concern that modified Schober test does not represent the whole lumbar spine 34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then the patient is instructed to flex forward as if attempting to touch his/her toes while keeping the knees straight. If the distance of the two points does not increase by at least 5 cm, this is evaluated as a sign of restriction in the lumbar flexion 16 . Due to concerns that the conventional Schober test may fail to evaluate movement of the whole lumbar spine 11 , the test was changed leading to two modified versions: the modified Schober test 18 and the modified-modified Schober test 19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Schober test is not a valid assessment tool for lumbar mobility

Taheri,

Becker,

Reitmaier

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Schober test is considered reliable in evaluating lumbar mobility and its impairment. Especially in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) identification of functional restriction is important. We aimed to investigate whether the 5 cm Schober cut-off provides a valid distinction between unrestricted and restricted mobility in participants with and without cLBP (18–65 years). cLBP is defined as LBP persisting for ≥ 12 weeks. We analyzed agreement between the Schober test with two measurement devices (Epionics SPINE®; Idiag M360®) and the influence of lumbar lordosis (LL) on their agreement. Also, the sensitivity and specificity of the Schober test was evaluated. For 187 participants (49.6%) Epionics SPINE® RoF and Schober test matched (either ≥ 5 cm; > 40.8° RoF or ≤ 5 cm; < 40.8° RoF), for 190 participants (50.4%) the two measurements did not. Idiag M360® RoF of 190 participants (50.4%) showed corresponding results (either ≥ 5 cm; > 46.0° RoF or ≤ 5 cm; < 46.0° RoF). Non-agreement was seen in 187 participants (49.6%). LL differed significantly in the Epionics SPINE® cohort (p < 0.001). Regarding the Epionics SPINE® cohort, Schober test showed a sensitivity of 79.6% with a specificity of 36.1%. For the Idiag M360® cohort, Schober test showed a sensitivity of 68.2% and a specificity of 46.6%. Our results do not establish a consistent matching between Schober test and the device measurements. Therefore, Schober test may not be valid to predict impairment of lumbar mobility. We recommend Schober test as an add-on in monitoring of an individual relative to its case.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%