Table A4.
Validity of clinical tests.
| Test | Authors | Validity | Notes and Summary of Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 tests battery: | Luomajoki et al. [39] | Effect size (ES) for the difference between the groups: 1.18 (CI 95%: 1.02–1.34). | Physiotherapists valued the performance of the subjects on the six movement control tests resulting in a score of 0–6 positive tests. |
| Waiter’s bow | p < 0.001 LBP vs healthy controls. | Authors compared the mean number of positive tests in the two groups. The differences between the groups were analyzed by the effect size (ES). | |
| Pelvic tilt | The statistical test showed that this was a significant difference (p < 0.001). | ||
| Between all the group: | |||
| p < 0.02 | |||
| p < 0.01 acute vs chronic | A subgroup analysis was performed of the number of positive tests depending on LBP. | ||
| p < 0.03 subacute vs chronic | A statistically significant difference was also found between acute and chronic (p < 0.01) as well as between subacute and chronic (p < 0.03). No difference between acute and subacute patient groups (p > 0.7). | ||
| One leg stance | |||
| Sitting knee extension | |||
| p > 0.7 acute and subacute. | |||
| Rocking 4 points kneeling | |||
| Prone lying active knee flexion | |||
| Knee lift abdominal test (KLAT) | Roussel et al. [40] | p = 0.048 (R/L) | The tests were performed in supine position and monitored with a pressure biofeedback unit (PBU): maximal pressure deviation from baseline was recorded during each test. The aim was to have as little deviation as possible. |
| Bent knee fall out (BKFO) | Roussel et al. [40] | p = 0.049 (L), 0.304 (R) | Significant differences were observed between dancers with and without a history of LBP (p value <0.05 bilaterally for KLAT and on the left leg for the BKFO). |
| Prone hip extension (PHE) | Bruno et al. [29] | p < 0.001 LBP group-patient score | The following analyses were performed: |
| p = 0.30 patient score-examiner classification | → exam of the effects of group status (LBP/control) and examiner classification (positive/negative) on the participant-reported perception of difficulty scores (0–5) | ||
| p = 0.96 LBP group—ex classification. | → The sensitivity (LBP group) and specificity (control group) were calculated for different cut-offs used to distinguish “positive” and “negative” participant scores. | ||
| Sn = 0.82 | |||
| Sp = 0.69 | |||
| (cut-off 0–1) | |||
| Active straight leg raise (ASLR) | Bruno et al. [29] | p < 0.001 LBP group-patient score | For both PHE and ASLR tests, a significant difference (p < 0.001) was found between the groups (LBP group perceived significant difficulty compared to the control group) but not for examiner classification. Not significant |
| p = 0.54 patient score-examiner classification | |||
| p = 0.89 LBP group—ex classification | For both tests, the sum of sensitivity and specificity was highest with a cut-off of 0–1: Values are reported beside. | ||
| Sn = 0.60 | |||
| Sp = 0.76 | |||
| (cut-off 0–1) | |||
| Trunk forward bending and return to upright | Biely et al. [28] | For altered lumbo-pelvic rhythm (LPR): | Two different approaches for construct validity: |
| (1) The ability of each individual aberrant movement to distinguish between patients with LBP, with history of LBP and without LBP. | |||
| * p = 0.07 | |||
| ** p = 0.52 | |||
| *** p = 0.23 | * → LBP vs No LBP | ||
| For deviation from sagittal plane (DEV): | ** → LBP vs history of LBP | ||
| * p = 0.004 | |||
| ** p = 0.75 | *** → No LBP vs history of LBP | ||
| *** p = 0.001 | p values expressed indicate the association between the presence of aberrant movement and the presence/absence/history of low back pain. | ||
| For instability catch (JUD): | (2) AMS: | ||
| * p = 0.002 | The average Aberrant Movement Score (AMS) score was calculated to provide a description | ||
| Considering the 4 aberrant movements LPR, DEV, JUD, and painful arc of motion, the mean | |||
| ** p = 0.001 | AMS has been calculated for each group, showing how the group that currently complains about LBP has the highest value. | ||
| *** p = 0.95 | |||
| For aberrant movement score (AMS): | The p values show a statistically significant difference between all groups (p < 0.05). | ||
| No LBP: 0.8 ± 0.63 | |||
| History of LBP: 1.3 ± 0.61 | |||
| LBP: 2.5 ± 0.96 | |||
| * p < 0.001 | |||
| ** p < 0.001 | |||
| *** p = 0.021 | |||
| Standing back extension test | Gondhalekar et al. [31] | AUC: 0.785 for abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM), 0.780 for ASLR | To establish validity, results of movement test from the first rater were compared with the difference in thickness during ASLR and ADIM results. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was used for assessing the validity of the standing back extension test with respect to reference standard of ultrasound measurements during ADIM and ASLR maneuvers. |
| It can be between 0 and 1: the closer the curve is to the top of the graph (i.e., to 1), the greater the discriminating power of the test. | |||
| For AUC = 0.785 and 0.780, standing back extension test can be considered moderately accurate. | |||
| Standing knee-lift test (SKL) | Granström et al. [32] | AUC: 0.47 | The ability of the tests to classify the subjects into the healthy or NSLBP group was analyzed using the ROC curve quantified by using the area under the curve. |
| Static lunge Test (SL) | Granström et al. [32] | AUC: 0.56 | Compared to the previous one, in this study, the AUC values are of lower accuracy. The authors considered an AUC of <0.5 as non-informative; 0.5 < AUC < 0.7 less accurate than chance alone; 0.7 < AUC < 0.9 moderately accurate; 0.9 < AUC < 1.0 highly accurate; and AUC = 1.0 like a perfect test. |
| Dynamic lunge test (DL) | Granström et al. [32] | AUC: 0.52 |
Legend: Sn = Sensitivity, Sp = Specificity, ROC = Receiver Operator Characteristic. For description and criteria of tests, see table “Inter-rater reliability”.