Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited O 10.1179/106698110X12804993427045 DOI ß Davis orsodnet:Ca ok 00Es al tet ot Canton, North Street, [email protected] Maple Email: East USA. 44720, 2020 OH Cook, Chad to: Correspondence of patient. array to vast stepwise patient a from episodic, with findings present of clinical may periods and single long progression, often no with is onset has insidious the symptom, (CSM) or sign myelopathy ‘pathognomonic’ spine Cervical Introduction Keywords: 3 1 Cook Chad myelopathy of spine diagnosis cervical for findings clinical Clustered sls fsrnt,arpy n ifiut nfine in difficulty and present. may atrophy, movements, strength, finger such of extremities loss upper the as in findings neuron motor lnclfnig htcudrl nadrl u S.Teecutr a eueu nietfigptet with patients identifying in useful populations. be may patient clusters similar These (negative in CSM. out CSM diagnosis rule out complex and in this rule rule to could that tests ratio findings positive clinical likelihood five of (positive one CSM into clustered ratio when likelihood capacity the demonstrated were aiuoahcsigns. radiculopathic aetei noeo oham rhands, or arms both or pain, one shoulder in stiffness, neck paresthesia include: may findings eae hne) ekeso h es n spasti- and legs, the of city. may gait weakness subsequent that changes), (with diagnosis related first clinical extremities lower a involve is myelopathy spine S.A R sms sflbcuetetool the because useful most is MRI cord An to stenosis, germane CSM. for elements cervical myelomalacia, method of or imaging compression, presence best the the confirming considered is (MRI) dniid hrenciia idnswr netgtdfrcpct odanssCM ieciia:()gait (1) clinical: and Five was analyses CSM. cluster conditions diagnosis regression definitive to a various capacity multivariate ratios, for Using likelihood with investigated (2) negative were CSM. deviation; patients findings and for clinical positive measures, 249 Thirteen and diagnostic and identified. specificity, tests from most sensitivity, clinical which for were Data determine of calculations the together, to cluster as myelopathy. analyzed clustered confirmation a were spine diagnosis/imaging produce dysfunction when than clinical spine to cervical beneficial a cervical endeavored using more with for study associated proven patients of have This standard sample tests making. a of decision reference for clusters treatment findings no most guiding clinical and present, At in predictive specific confirmation. are tests imaging CSM alone with identify made stand to diagnosis used clinical tests a is clinical (CSM) myelopathy spine Cervical USA NC, Durham, University, Duke as nvriy ot atn H USA, OH, Canton, North University, Walsh eateto hscladOcptoa hrp,Dk nvriy uhm C USA, NC, Durham, University, Duke Therapy, Occupational and Physical of Department .S ae o t 2010 Ltd Son & Maney S. W. 6,7 ssia oddgnrto rgess lower progresses, degeneration cord spinal As 2 evclsiemeoah,Ciia rdcinrl,Dansi cuay estvt,Specificity Sensitivity, accuracy, Diagnostic rule, prediction Clinical myelopathy, spine Cervical ila Richardson William , z 5 1,2 .8 5 CI 95% 0.18; ofansts;()ivre uiao in (4) sign; supinator inverted (3) test; Hoffmann’s hitpe Brown Christopher , 9 antcrsnneimage resonance magnetic A 5 5 .204) n hncutrdit he ffv oiiefnig orl in rule to findings positive five of three into clustered when and 0.12–0.42), 7 09 5 CI 95% 30.9; diinlclinical Additional 4 1–5 2 eateto ugr,Dk nvriy uhm C USA, NC, Durham, University, Duke Surgery, of Department Cervical 2 oetIsaacs Robert , 5 8 .–8.) hssuyfudcutrdcmiain of combinations clustered found study This 5.5–181.8). or ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal estvt 7–5)adseict (82–88%) specificity and (LR (79–95%) of levels the sensitivity high on relatively demonstrates placed and compression cord, spinal of amount the expresses eptno ee testing, reflex tendon deep nomto.Aps td htivle small improve a to findings involved group that to attempted study size sample past pertinent of A assemblage by larger information. processes a account making into decision can taking and clinical tests actual alone stand mimic of comprehensive weaknesses inherent of the overcome often into reflective tests Clustering tests more findings. examination combining are is that testing clusters clinical of accuracy sign, passive and tests, active of number clinical a of capacity screening o vrl igotcadmyla oanme of number positives. false a occasions, rare to in lead and negatives may false the and are diagnostic out alone, overtly used ruling not when versus tests, the condition addition, suspected In condition. a in rule to useful are and sensitive, versus specific, are tests these n ehdue oipoetediagnostic the improve to used method One and accuracy diagnostic the studied have studies Past z 11,16 5 .979;LR 4.39–7.92; aisisign, Babinski z 2 aisits;ad()age (5) and test; Babinski 8,11–13 ate Roman Matthew , nldn ofanstest, Hoffmann’s including 25 17 n clonus. and 0.06–0.27). 8,11,15 4 eateto Surgery, of Department 2010 netdsupinator inverted 10 18 3 Samuel , eryalof all Nearly VOL . .18 5years, 45 8,11,14 NO 8 .4 175 Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited oke al. et Cook 176 ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal ecitv aibe nld h efrpr findings self-report the include variables Descriptive variables Descriptive descriptive included variables. predictive study The and the interface. for database variables Internet-based compatible targeted real-time Excel allows structured that a ortho- were into findings the examination of input screening policy All the clinic. to pedic physician accordance in or a or assistant) therapist surgeons was (physical orthopedic of process physician-extender physical number a screening and by The facilitated self-report methods. of examination consisted exam- that screening standardized ination a received patients All examination cases, screening Standardized all patient’s in the was but dysfunction complaint. symptoms primary or pain and spine signs cervical a for of seen were variety Patients examina- or facility. the screening at performed performed standardized in tion recorded was the prospectively to (MRI) were accordance data imaging if was and diagnosis if available clinical a and if dysfunction study made or the pain for cervical eligible were with to patients 2006 All from University 2009. Duke a at at center System. seen surgery patients spine Health consecutive 249 University included study Duke The of Institutional Board the by Review approved was protocol study The Participants Bossuyt the accu- by diagnostic forth followed set of racy study reporting for this standards STARD for guidelines Procedural guidelines Study Methods and Materials diagnosis. identify a of to probability post- failed the test modified but substantially that myelopathy findings grouped of diagnosis the fae edr ae aia tts employment status, marital race, gender, age, of igoi sterfrnesadr o CSM. the this out rule screening. confirm or for during condition to condition the clinical of standard ability stage a in our earlier reference disease using improve test patient may the clinical Findings of predictive as sample of diagnosis a cluster for a findings produce study to this of is purpose the of Consequently, weighting results. intensity equal both for with MRI findings, signal involves standard clinical CSM and reference of of findings diagnosis the the use as reality, In MRI the CSM. the was on failed changes have may ino atcpn,saitclaayi,rsls and results, analysis, findings. case of statistical descrip- conclusions typical participant, toward a of oriented are tion in items Topics germane 25 design. control topics involve with and associated studies accuracy for processes diagnostic reporting improve to used are standards lsee lnclfnig o igoi fCSM of diagnosis for findings clinical Clustered tal. et 8 19 n esntestudy the reason One rey h STARD the Briefly, 2010 VOL .18 NO .4 umdt rvd nitrrtbemaueof measure a interpretable is and an SF12 life. weighted of provide The quality is and group. to SF36 disease summed the of or version age shortened specific a weight. typical and index height highest mass from body calculated its of (BMI) finding at physical the score and of amount, percentage pain as complaints, SF12, scored current disability), for (NDI, index of therapy disability duration neck physical problem, of current use status, workman’s compensation status, educational status, exercise status, aaeesfrcnraino pnlcr com- cord spinal myelopathy. a of pression confirmation appropriate most for the parameters considered found are cord imaging the MR to on changes subarachnoid intensity signal the and of space, obliteration compression, of cord evidence cross-sectional denied a Anterior– reduction, cases. width or 249 posterior all findings, in confirmed (MRI) methods was imaging examination by myelopathy of clinical suspected diagnosis pertinent When proprioception). after and and sensation losses of variable and clumsiness) gait testing, coordination during weakness, pain, and losses multisegmental shoulder (e.g. stiffness examination and physical and arm bilateral neck, dysfunction, or (e.g. unilateral aching history loss, deep, patient’s dexterity stiffness, the of neck in consideration symptoms careful presenting after by made surgeons was CSM orthopedic of diagnosis a participants, all myelopathy For spine cervical of Diagnosis score. score constancy pain pain and Achilles, analysis), ROC or inverted (after quadriceps, the biceps, sign, abnormality the supinator in gait), Spurling, Gait spastic hyper-reflexia or a of ataxia, presence of of gait, based presence pre- wide tests (abnormally test, Clonus, distraction of the the sence Babinski, analysis), and Hoffmann, (ROC character- operator istics receiver after included categorization variables age Predictive literature. consultation published after of targeted were variables Predictive variables Predictive a soitdwt opi,weesasoeo 10 of score a whereas of score pain, A no 10. with to associated 0 was from highest scale 0 was Patients its point at eleven an point point scale. on current level their analog highest report a to numeric its asked produce were a at to using 2 Pain calculated by score. higher multiplied with percentage was 50 the is score study, this score obtained For maximum disability. higher the indicating 5; scores scored is to and items 0 10 pain from of consists to scale back due The pain. disability neck low self-rated measuring Oswestry for instrument the index. of disability modification a a soitdwt aiu pain. maximum with associated was h F2i eei esr n osnttarget not does and measure generic a is SF12 The 20 21 h D a eeoe n18 as 1989 in developed was NDI The h D safeunl used frequently a is NDI The 22–26 ainswomtthe met who Patients Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited a sdt eemn lnclpeito uefrthe for CSM. rule prediction of clinical a diagnosis determine and to used age was for values score. to cutoff pain reported used possible highest were curves all ROC determine item. test predictive each iait nlssfudsgicn ifrne nage in ( differences significant found analyses Bivariate Results likelihood (positive ratios likelihood ratio and tables Contingency city, accuracy. diagnostic (2 for ined A CSM. of Bivariate diagnosis ( and CSM. with clinical patients a of between without diagnosis out carried a were analyses without and patients of with groups into sequestered statistics and Descriptive Windows captured were USA). for IL, Excel 13.0 Chicago, SPSS Inc., Internet-based (SPSS to the transferred were from dataset downloaded Data analysis Data database. or the (‘yes’ into appropriately input and coded ‘no’) were CSM for criteria rcdr a sdt eetvrals with variables, selection select to stepwise used backward was A procedure model. the into entered LR in 2 individual the from variables h 3peitrvrals sn ot Carlo Monte Using variables. and Peduzzi predictor values simulations, regression 13 the the using the Consequently, powered values. was sensitivity study of at values expense specificity the up drives often findings clustered ofiec nevl o h igotcaccuracy diagnostic the reduce for further statistics. whereas to intervals analysis, necessary be confidence regression may the numbers ade- larger for provide would values patients quate 130–260 boundary finding that a This analyses. suggests for regression for appropriate variable per is level predictor per 10–20 pcfiiy n ieiodrto eeaaye.In analyzed. were ratios likelihood of five and ea and three, For specificity, of findings. four five, positive of five three five, 2 of of two into one five, of input conditions the then involved that were Variables tables contingency and it. a rule develop enter to prediction to used clinical were 0.10 model and regression the model by retained the exit to 0.15 o estvt values, than sensitivity lower levels) for (lower being estimates interval values confidence acceptable of probabilities tabulated sample). this in CSM 35% of of prevalence probability (the pre-test mea- a using probability calculated were post-test sures condition, each in addition, P 6 Ab a c k w a r ds t e p w i s eb i n a r yl o g i s t i cr e g r e s s i o nm o d e l l 3peitrvralswr niiulyexam- individually were variables predictor 13 All significant. considered was 0.05 5 otdansi cuaysuisaepwrdon powered are studies accuracy diagnostic Most )wr sdt aclt estvt n specifi- and sensitivity calculate to used were 2) .5,drto fsmtm ( symptoms of duration 0.05), 5 z LR ausof values z eaielklho ratio likelihood negative ; . 26 . n/rLR and/or 2.0 tal. et h odtoal independent conditionally The 27 hra tde involving studies whereas 28 6 hcniin sensitivity, condition, ch eotdta an than reported 2a n a l y s e st h a tr e s u l t e d 2 values P , 5 .1,SF12 0.01), P P LR , ausof values au of value . were 0.5 2 for ) n 6 of 2 ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal omrLmso etidctdta h oe fit ( model data the the that indicated test gait Hosmer–Lemeshow sign, age supinator and and inverted abnormality, Babinski’s the of in signs, tests included Hoffmann’s the variables modeling, 10 regression the the Of analysis. regression CI 95% (0.48; n h udies(.;9%CI . 95% CI (6.9; quadriceps 95% the (7.8; and Achilles the of hyperreflexia single the LR demonstrated highest sign supinator inverted criteria The the met that LR variables of 10 were There 2. Table and scores, scores. SF12 BMI lower higher had had longer symptoms, a had of older, duration typically were CSM with Patients ( scores inwt nMI smr ossetwt an with upon only. findings consistent improves imaging and used more that CSM works is previous of MRI) diagnosis an confirma- acceptable (with with standard clinical reference tion a the of use as the diagnosis addition, In provide condi- myelopathy. in also of ruling tions but confirmatory, are myelopathy, that of ruling combinations in that condition useful findings tool, the of screening out a cluster as a function is captured only not this has as that cervical unique first are the of findings The confirmation) myelopathy. spine imaging clinical a (with of useful indicative was a diagnosis that identify tests clinical produce of to cluster endeavored study This Discussion nig uigtsigo ofanssign, others, Hoffmann’s rule by to identified of As hyper-reflexia myelopathy. and out Clonus, testing sign, Babinski’s during findings uhr aesgetdteueo lseso test of clusters of examination; the use of sensitivity the improve the to findings suggested previous have Although myelopathy. appro- authors out not ruling are for and priate sensitivity low demonstrate tests eurdfrapstv etaelse nTbe3. Table in abnormalities listed are of test number positive the a for to required according ties 0.36. v et eepstv n oisacsi hc all 30.9 positive. which were in tests instances five of no of and five of positive four ratio were which tests in instances five eight likelihood tests only were There positive 94%. positive five of (95%CI a A three 0.18. of included yielded ratio likelihood that negative a finding and sensitiv- 0.94 in a of yielding resulted ity combination tests screening positive strong five the of one Diagnostically, 5yasdmntae LR a demonstrated years 45 l 4 ain auswr nlddi the in included were values patient 249 All niiulpeitrvral crsaerpre in reported are scores variable predictor Individual ayhatcr lncaslo o negative for look clinicians healthcare Many h v etvralsadterdansi proper- diagnostic their and variables test five The z 5 P rae hn2ado LR and/or 2 than greater .–8.)adaps-etpoaiiyof probability post-test a and 5.5–181.8) 5 P z 5 .1,adBI( BMI and 0.01), oke al. et Cook .9,adteNagelkerke the and 0.59), 5 2.;9%CI 95% (29.1; 0.26–0.85). . lsee lnclfnig o igoi fCSM of diagnosis for findings clinical Clustered 5yaswr eand The retained. were years 45 5 .–7.)floe by followed 5.1–171.5) 5 2 P 2010 .–75.Ol age Only 2.8–17.5). 5 fls hn0.50 than less of 2 .5 Tbe1). (Table 0.05) esta 0.50. than less VOL R 8,12,13 5 .18 2 2.5–25.4) equaled these 11 NO .4 8 177 Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited oke al. et Cook 178 ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal mlyetsau 42 status Employment uaino ypos2 symptoms of Duration hrp o urn problem current for therapy physical of bout Previous oka’ opnain7 compensation Workman’s aia tts54 status Marital M 87(.)2. (5.4) 27.4 0.95 (6.7) 45.4 (4.4) 28.7 (18.5) 40.4 (7) 42.9 (19.4) 40.3 BMI report highest the at score Pain score SF12 disability percentage NDI ae63 Race dctoa tts3 status Educational g 69(25 33(15.6) 53.3 (12.5) 56.9 48 Gender Age xrierglry33 regularly Exercise ansoe03 02–.5 .2(.805)08(.211 . (0.95–1.5) 1.2 (0.67–1.3) 0.95 (0.52–1.1) 0.8 (0.82–1.3) 1.03 (0.48–0.57) 0.52 (0.35–0.45) 0.40 (0.28–0.45) (0.94–1.0) 0.36 (0.84–0.98) 0.97 0.90 (0.53–0.70) 0.62 (0.96–0.99) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 0.99 (0.91–0.97) 0.94 (0.98–1.0) 1.0 (0.97–0.99) 0.99 (0.51–6.5) (0.94–0.99) 1.8 (0.93–0.98) 0.97 (0.11–0.17) 0.96 (1.2–5.8) 0.15 (0.04–0.08) 2.6 0.07 (0.14–0.24) Note 0.19 (0.42–0.68) (0.59–0.84) 0.07 0.73 (0.14–0.19) constancy 0.18 (0.96–0.99) (0.17–0.25) Pain 0.97 (0.13–0.22) 0.22 0.18 (0.92–0.97) score 0.94 Pain Achilles (0.25–0.35) Hyper-reflexia 0.31 (0.02–0.07) quadriceps 0.40 Hyper-reflexia (0.09–0.19) sign 0.15 supinator Inverted biceps Hyper-reflexia deviation Gait test Babinski Clonus test Hoffmann’s test Distraction test Spurling’s Age item myelopathy Test of measures individual of Validity 2 Table identified one’s been have in and condition values a out moderate rule to provide ability range Values this (0.12–0.42). 0.18 within of ratio likelihood and (0.89–0.97) negative 0.94 a of sensitivity a yielded sensitive tests one five positive a of any demonstrated study, this has In clusters. study of combination no point, this to Descriptor sample the of statistics Descriptive 1 Table lsee lnclfnig o igoi fCSM of diagnosis for findings clinical Clustered sfllklho aisapa nbold. in appear ratios likelihood Useful : . 5yas08 08–.3 .6(.302)12(1.0–1.3) 1.2 (0.23–0.29) 0.26 (0.81–0.93) 0.86 years 45 9%CI) (95% Sensitivity 15 13 7 42 leave paid 10 12 19 40 38 2 53 10 10 8 7 4 1 3 . 28 . 28 0.88 (2.8) 5.2 (2.8) 5.2 20 13 23 17 40 41 en(SD)/Freq Mean ylpty( myelopathy with Diagnosed 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ( > 5 5 5 5 5 ( 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 – years 1–3 osymptoms No Other Yes Single rdaedegree Graduate Other Asian Hispanic ihschool High years 5 – years 3–5 None otst year 1 to months 6 ul at or part, Full, – months 3–6 No Yes No Divorced Widowed Married olg degree College Black oecollege Some Caucasian ihschool High Female No Male Yes months 3 2010 n 5 VOL 9%CI) (95% Specificity 88) .18 NO .4 sueu uigciia eiinmaking. decision clinical during useful as ofimtepeec ftessiino S.MIis MRI CSM. of suspicion the of presence the confirm the that confident CSM. have be not should do patients findings only identify test who positive clinicians that suggests l ujcsi hssuyrcie Riaigto imaging MR received study this in subjects All 3 77 8 16 61 10 70 26 97 53 7 27 37 30 2 1 2 47 17 8 133 26 5 85 76 34 75 69 27 18 74 leave paid 33 ylpty( myelopathy without Diagnosed 5 5 5 5 5 5 ( 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 > 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ( osymptoms No Other Yes Other Asian Hispanic – years 3–5 ihschool High . (2.5–25.4) 7.8 (2.8–17.5) 6.9 (5.1–171.5) 29.1 (2.0–11.7) 4.8 (1.6–7.3) 3.4 (2.9–Inf) Inf (1.2–23.4) 5.4 (2.6–9.6) 4.9 CI) (95% ratio likelihood Positive 5 ul at or part, Full, Divorced No Widowed Yes Single Married No rdaedegree Graduate olg degree College oecollege Some ihschool High Black years 5 Female No – years 1–3 Male Yes otst year 1 to months 6 – months 3–6 None months 3 Caucasian n 5 161) .7(0.84–0.93) 0.87 (0.76–0.89) 0.81 (0.81–0.84) 0.82 (0.79–0.93) 0.85 (0.78–0.94) 0.85 (0.93–0.97) 0.93 (0.09–0.99) 0.94 (0.67–0.83) 0.74 (0.26–0.85) 0.48 CI) (95% ratio likelihood Negative 0.28 0.51 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.05 0.01 , 0.25 0.68 0.05 0.88 P 0.01 value ( 29 f5 of 1 This Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited f5pstv et .9(.600)10(.810 n 39If .1(.009)99 occupying space as and such tumors, (0.90–0.95) abnormalities sensitivity 0.91 identify- selected in 64 acceptable capacities ing 94 notable yielded with 43 values, has specificity and (0.59–0.79) for 0.63 (0.79–0.87) method CSM 0.81 imaging (3.9–Inf) (0.12–0.42) confirmatory Inf 0.18 best the considered (5.5–181.8) 30.9 (0.98–1.0) 1.0 (2.1–5.5) 3.3 (0.97–0.99) 0.99 age (1.2–1.4) (0.06–0.09) 1.4 0.09 (0.84–0.92) 0.88 Note (0.15–0.20) 0.19 (0.27–0.32) tests 0.31 positive (0.33–0.46) 5 0.39 of tests 4 positive (0.89–0.97) 5 0.94 of tests 3 positive 5 of tests 2 positive 5 of 1 myelopathy spine results cervical Clustered of diagnosis for findings Clustered 3 Table tion. eeiyo evclcmrsiemeoah and myelopathy pre-operative surgery. compressive with after cervical prognosis correlate of findings to MRI severity shown Furthermore, been com- cord. potentially have spinal that the structures press all the ligaments, of and osteophytes, views vertebral disc, detailed in intervertebral provides cord, develops spinal and that cord), cavity spinal (fluid-filled the syrinx or tumor uln lseso nig stecneto condi- of concept the is findings of clusters outline aeietfidslce unial atvariations gait quantifiable selected studies Past identified CSM. tracts have in spinocerebellar notable problems and dysfunction; invol- tracts changes corticospinal identifiers neuron ving common motor upper are with they descriptors associated These because gait. selected spastic were or was ataxia, wide gait gait, abnormally of based Abnormal incidence any as gait. assessed visually abnormal of assessment regression. this stepwise accurate, the inverted in most left the the was alone was Because measure finding clusters. were sign sign in supinator supinator positive inverted the always hyper- and quadriceps, the Achilles, biceps, study, the and condi- at our captured four In measures of reflexia tests. findings dependent the same tionally the as has test accuracy one of diagnostic no finding the yield this and results value When further test clusters. additional actually in occurs, in tests together together phenomenon positive negative of are or series and clusters a thing same when the or measure the finding to dissimilar test not is first finding occurs test subsequent dependence a when Conditional dependence. tional R ossetydsrbdb ailgssta are on that myelopathy. radiologists findings of reflective by objective the described definitive to consistently condition no MRI changes are specific intensity there cord), signal and through chronic identified of exception (a the unwarranted with myelomalacia is present, CSM At of inappropriate. diagnosis and for MRI an of use n ftecutrdfidnsi u td was study our in findings clustered the of One to failed have studies past why reason possible One . ietssaeicue nterl:()gi eito;(2) deviation; gait (1) rule: the in included are tests Five : 32 5yas h soitdps-etpoaiiyvle r ae napets rbblt f35%. of probability pre-test a on based are values probability post-test associated The years. 45 h R rvdsteaiiyt ueota out rule to ability the provides MRI The 30 icherniation, disc 9%CI) (95% Sensitivity 9 31,33 31 n iaetu ossifica- ligamentous and oehls,exclusive Nonetheless, 9%CI) (95% Specificity z ai 9%CI) (95% ratio likelihood Positive ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal ofansts;()ivre uiao in (4) sign; supinator inverted (3) test; Hoffmann’s obntoso he ffieo oro v tests the five of of probability four post-test or of five adjustments of enabled myelopathy. three spine of cervical in Combinations ruling and out ruling in admwl et rteprle aktest. walk parallel the the test, step or 10-second test, the walk as such tandem tools using z naystaini hc h igotcsadr sa is standard diagnostic the which in present situation is any which The in bias, limitations. incorporation notable is of limitation number first a has study This Limitations symptoms first the myelopathy, are with problems associated gait Although hssuyfudta eetdcmiain of deviation; gait combinations (1) selected of (2) consisted that that findings found clinical study This Conclusion data, occurs retrospective bias minimal from indicated STARD both studies diagnostic the for accuracy factors by biasing potential bias examined that for potential been initiative. a has as analysis identified retrospective examined and were analysis retrospectively 13 clustered the influenced Additionally, for the present. variables tests is the diagnosis analyzed the the the of that that outcome made chance the the who those tests, clinicians also predictor same were the many diagnosis all) in (not because cases Consequently, diagnosis. clinical ol vrsiaeteacrc fti lse na sample. our in to cluster dissimilar this may subjects of of and bias population accuracy values the spectrum specificity overestimate and could severe. of sensitivity quite the form often exaggerate a problems, this neck with Consequently, of patients degree involved wide and for surgeons appointments clinical in orthopedic of patients attendees were the study Lastly, the and exploration. study this further in deserves examined not was gait of assessment ehdo atassmn a aeipoe the model. improved clustered our have of may accuracy assessment diagnostic gait of method n nlzda such. as prospectively analyzed captured and were that data than difference bomlte soitdwt S r poorly literature. are gait-related the CSM in specific with defined associated CI: Furthermore, abnormalities 95% (0.19; assessment 0.14–0.24). this for values sensitivity aisits;ad()age (5) and test; Babinski z ofansts;()ivre uiao in (4) sign; supinator inverted (3) test; Hoffmann’s 19 oehls,torcn meta-analyses recent two Nonetheless, ai 9%CI) (95% ratio likelihood Negative oke al. et Cook 36 lsee lnclfnig o igoi fCSM of diagnosis for findings clinical Clustered h eiblt ftevisual the of reliability The 36,37 35 . 9 5yaswr affective were years 45 oequantifiable more A u td on low found study our fCS(%) CTS of probability Post-test n niaigno indicating one 2010 z z aisits;ad(5) and test; Babinski VOL .18 NO 34 .4 179 Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited oke al. et Cook 180 ora fMna n aiuaieTherapy Manipulative and Manual of Journal 8YugW.Cria pnyoi ylpty omncause common a myelopathy: spondylotic Cervical WF. Young 18 methods various by sign’’ toe ‘‘Extensor S. Pradhan D, Ghosh supinator 17 inverted the of Mechanism OS. spondy- Marin cervical BV, of Estanol diagnosis 16 Early GR. Meadows cervical JJ, Denno Anterior 15 MJ. Bolesta HH, Bohlman SE, Emery spinal Cervical 14 DL. Morrow KL, Bailey JK, Cure JA, Glaser 13 and myelopathy cervical of R. signs Clinical LA. Isaacs Noce JK, Houten LG, 12 Leithe KM, Stewart M, Roman C, Cook 11 resonance Magnetic S. Takata Y, Taoka T, Ikata T, Fukushima 10 References in diagnosis complex populations. patient this similar in with useful be patients may identifying clusters These 94–99%. to condition enrkJ aaa ,DskL oon ,Srlv D, Surelova O, Novotny L, Dusek Z, pragmatic Kadanak A J, A. Bednarik Goode 9 R, Pietrobon E, Hegedus C, Neurological Cook A. 8 Sharan MT, Silva A, Hanna JS, of Harrop Design 7 2007 JA. Grotenhuis AL, Clinical Verbeek JD. RH, Davis Bartels K, 6 Hitchcock R, Guthmann S, cervical Brown of by 5 treated treatment spondylosis cervical to surgical due Myelopathy The AH. Roberts P. 4 Lavender L, Syman 3 of history natural The JA. Albright RP, Reddy KK, Sadasivan 2 cervical of management surgical The NE. Epstein JA, Epstein 1 h ofansg.Junlo ersrey pn 2008;9:237– Spine neurosurgery. 42. of Journal sign. Hoffmann the Orthop J 2009;39:172–8. dysfunction. for Ther cervical tests Phys for Sports special seen clinical patients of in myelopathy accuracy diagnostic and Reliability cervical Suppl.):S534–8. with 1991;16(10 patients Spine in myelopathy. plasticity cord compression spinal on study imaging 2004;29:2260–9. compres- Spine cord sion. cervical spondylotic Presymptomatic I. Urbanek compres- 2007;87:1233–42 cord Ther suspected Phys with myelopathy. patients sive for screen neurological 2007;60(1 Neurosurgery signs, of pathophysiology. 1):S14–20. overview Supp1. and an spondylosis: cervical symptoms, cervical for of fusion manifestations doral 2007;8:111. with Dis Musculoskel or BMC without myeloradiculopathy. compar- trial laminectomy controlled ing multi-centre randomized, a Lamifuse: radiculo- 2009;58:97–9. cervical Pract for Fam effective J are pathy? treatments which inquiries: 1966;16:951–4. Neurology immobilization. collar 1967;17:117–26. Neurology myelopathy. spondylotic 1993;66:235– Med B. Biol 42. J J. Yale myelopathy. PA: spondylotic cervical Philadelphia, R,, ed. Raynor 625–43. L, p. 2nd 1989. Penning spine. Co.; Eismont K, Lippincott cervical EJ, Ono Dunn DM, The HH, Long editors. Sherk JW, In: Fielding approach. FJ, posterior means the by myeloradiculopathy of and spondylosis, stenosis, spinal fsia oddsucini le esn.A a Phys Fam Am persons. Neurol older Child in dysfunction J 2000;62:1064–70,1073. cord palsy. spinal of cerebral with Neuro children J 1998;13:216–20. spastic study. in neurophysiological and 1976;39:905–8. clinical Psych Neurosurg a 1991;16:1353–5. reflex: Spine sign. clinical useful a myelopathy: lotic J Orthop Iowa sign. Hoffmann the and 2001;21:49–52. compression cord pnyoi ylpty w osvnenya follow-up. seventeen-year 1998;80A:941–51. (AM) cervical to Surg of Joint two Bone treatment J the myelopathy: for spondylotic arthrodesis and decompression lsee lnclfnig o igoi fCSM of diagnosis for findings clinical Clustered 2010 VOL .18 NO .4 2MtuaY iaaiK aaK auaA aaaaT, Nakayama A, Yasuda K, of Tada study K, Miyazaki a Y, Index: Matsuda Disability 22 Neck The S. Mior Oswestry H, modified Vernon a 21 of comparison A JJ. Irrgang JM, Fritz 20 Glasziou CA, Gatsonis DE, Bruns JB, Reitsma PM, Bossuyt 19 8PdziP oct ,FisenA,HlodT.Importance TR. Holford AR, Feinstein J, Concato P, Peduzzi calculation size 28 Sample G. Thomas M, Cadilhac A, Flahault 27 A, Delitto ML, Boninger JJ, Irrgang JM, Fritz RS, Wainner JL. Fox 26 RR, Smith TH, Middleton LH, Harkey O, Al-Mefty 25 spondy- Cervical EC. Benzel MP, Steinmetz WE, McCormick 24 N, Suzuki K, Chiba M, Ishikawa Y, Toyama M, Matsumoto 23 7Rte mRisaJ iii ,SitN a inJ Bossuyt J, Rijn van N, Smidt M, DiNisio J, Reitsma Am Rutjes 37 van MH, Prins GJ, Bonsel Jr. S, Heisterkamp FP, BW, Mol Cammisa JG, Lijmer FP, 36 Girardi A, Wu RC, Huang MR, Masaaki Lim H, Nakashima 35 Y, Horie K, Ito F, Kato Y, Yukawa spondylotic 34 multiple to secondary myelopathy Cervical K. Ono hyper- 33 of Analysis Y. Hashizume H, Nakagawa disc J, spine Mizuno Cervical 32 DB. Hackney SW, Atlas DM, Yousem 31 The K. Ono K, Yamashita S, Ebara the K, Yonenobu to K, Fujiwara guides 30 User’s D. Sackett CH, Guyatt R, Jaeschke 29 eiblt n aiiy aiuaiePyilTher Physiol Manipulative H, Murakami J validity. and 1991;14:409–15. reliability 2001;81:776–88. Back Ther Quebec Phys the Scale. initiative. and Disability Questionnaire Pain Disability STARD Pain Back the Low accuracy: 2007;36:8–12. diagnostic Pathol Clin of Veterinary studies of LM, Irwig PP, ersinaayi.I.Acrc n rcso fregression of hazards precision proportional and in Accuracy variable II. independent analysis. regression per test events diagnostic of in accuracy 2005;58:859–62. design Epidemiol Clin for J studies. performed cervical be for should measures 2003;28:52–62. clinical 1976) the self-report Pa (Phila of Spine patient accuracy radiculopathy. diagnostic and and examination Reliability S. by Allison demonstrated 1988;68:217–22. Neurosurg lesions J imaging. spondylotic resonance magnetic cervical for Myelopathic refer 2003;70:899–904. then Med diagnosis, J Clin difficult Cleve the surgery. make myelopathy: lotic Spine treatment? on conservative of cord outcome 2000;25:677–82. cases. the spinal predict myelopathy it the compressive Does surgical cervical — of in intensity images 29 resonance signal magnetic Increased of Y. Fujimura analysis — 1991;74:887–92. Neurosurg J myelopathy cervical .Eiec fba n aito ndansi cuaystudies. accuracy diagnostic 2006;174:1–12. in variation CMAJ and bias of Evidence P. 1999;282:1061–6. JAMA tests. diagnostic of studies in JH, Meulen der Am J gait. abnormal 2007;15:107–17. an Surg with Orthop patient Acad elderly the of 2009;34:82–6. Evaluation 1976) Pa (Phila Spine myelopathy. cervical of studies. M, 1977;2:125. experimental Spine study. and clinicopathologic a clinical protrusions: of cervical the basis of 2001;49:1091–7. the ligament Neurosurg longitudinal on posterior spine, the of MR trophy echo 1992;16:345–51. gradient Tomogr (BR) 3DFT Assist Comput and Surg J CT scans. Joint of Bone comparison herniation: J involved. factors the 1998;71:393–8. an of — myelopathy compression analysis cervical for surgery for of caring prognosis in me help they 1994;271:703–7. will JAMA and diagnostic patients? results a the my about are article What an B. use test. to How III. literature. medical 1995;48:1503–10. Epidemiol Clin J estimates. tal. et ‘e eodse et’a e uniibeparameter quantifiable new a as test’’ step second ‘‘Ten tal. et tal. et tal. et oad opeeadacrt reporting accurate and complete Towards miia vdneo einrltdbias design-related of evidence Empirical nrae Rsga nest u to due intensity signal MR Increased