• Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Reproducibility of tender point examination in chronic low back pain patients as measured by intrarater and inter-rater reliability and agreement: a validation study
  • Contributor: Jensen, Ole Kudsk; Callesen, Jacob; Nielsen, Merete Graakjaer; Ellingsen, Torkell
  • Published: BMJ, 2013
  • Published in: BMJ Open, 3 (2013) 2, Seite e002532
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002532
  • ISSN: 2044-6055
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: ObjectivesTo evaluate the reliability and agreement of digital tender point (TP) examination in chronic low back pain (LBP) patients.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingsHospital-based validation study.ParticipantsAmong sick-listed LBP patients referred from general practitioners for low back examination and return-to-work intervention, 43 and 39 patients, respectively (18 women, 46%) entered and completed the study.Main outcome measuresThe reliability was estimated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and agreement was calculated for up to ±3 TPs. Furthermore, the smallest detectable difference was calculated.ResultsTP examination was performed twice by two consultants in rheumatology and rehabilitation at 20 min intervals and repeated 1 week later. Intrarater reliability in the more and less experienced rater was ICC 0.84 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.98) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.95), respectively. The figures for inter-rater reliability were intermediate between these figures. In more than 70% of the cases, the raters agreed within ±3 TPs in both men and women and between test days. The smallest detectable difference between raters was 5, and for the more and less experienced rater it was 4 and 6 TPs, respectively.ConclusionsThe reliability of digital TP examination ranged from acceptable to excellent, and agreement was good in both men and women. The smallest detectable differences varied from 4 to 6 TPs. Thus, TP examination in our hands was a reliable but not precise instrument. Digital TP examination may be useful in daily clinical practice, but regular use and training sessions are required to secure quality of testing.
  • Access State: Open Access