Accuracy of the Applied Kinesiology Muscle Strength Test for Sacroiliac Dysfunction

Overview

Journal Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)

Publisher Thieme

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2020 Jul 4

PMID 32616973

Authors

Jaisson Agne Estrazulas

Lauro Sinval Bueno

Luana Rocha de Oliveira Lombardi

Jansen Atier Estrazulas

Tiotrefis Gomes Fernandes

Juliana Albuquerque Baltar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To investigate the accuracy of the applied kinesiology muscle strength test for sacroiliac dysfunction and compared it with four validated orthopedic tests. This is a cross-sectional accuracy survey developed at a private practice in the city of Manaus, Brazil, during February 2017. The sample consisted of 20 individuals, with a median age of 33.5 years. Four tests were applied: distraction, thigh thrust, compression and sacral thrust, and the diagnosis was confirmed when three of these tests were positive. Soon after, the applied kinesiology test was applied to the piriformis muscle. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint dysfunction was of 45%; the thigh thrust test had the highest specificity, and the sacral thrust test had the highest sensitivity. The applied kinesiology test presented good results (sensitivity: 0.89; specificity: 0.82; positive predictive value: 0.80; negative predictive value: 0.82; accuracy: 0.85; and area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve: 0.85). The applied kinesiology muscle strength test, which has great clinical feasibility, showed good accuracy in diagnosing sacroiliac joint dysfunction and greater discriminatory power for the existing dysfunction in comparison to other tests.

References

Laslett M, Aprill C, McDonald B, Young S . Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests. Man Ther. 2005; 10(3):207-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2005.01.003. View

Robinson H, Brox J, Robinson R, Bjelland E, Solem S, Telje T . The reliability of selected motion- and pain provocation tests for the sacroiliac joint. Man Ther. 2006; 12(1):72-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2005.09.004. View

Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F . A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64(6):2028-37. DOI: 10.1002/art.34347. View

Szadek K, van der Wurff P, Van Tulder M, Zuurmond W, Perez R . Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review. J Pain. 2008; 10(4):354-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.09.014. View

Lawson A, Calderon L . Interexaminer agreement for applied kinesiology manual muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 1997; 84(2):539-46. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1997.84.2.539. View

Rupert M, Lee M, Manchikanti L, Datta S, Cohen S . Evaluation of sacroiliac joint interventions: a systematic appraisal of the literature. Pain Physician. 2009; 12(2):399-418. View

van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, Gil Del Real M, Hutchinson A . Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15 Suppl 2:S169-91. PMC: 3454540. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2. View

Hall S, Lewith G, Brien S, Little P . A review of the literature in applied and specialised kinesiology. Forsch Komplementmed. 2008; 15(1):40-6. DOI: 10.1159/000112820. View

Stuber K . Specificity, sensitivity, and predictive values of clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint: a systematic review of the literature. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2007; 51(1):30-41. PMC: 1924656. View

10.

Simopoulos T, Manchikanti L, Singh V, Gupta S, Hameed H, Diwan S . A systematic evaluation of prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician. 2012; 15(3):E305-44. View

11.

Kennedy D, Engel A, Kreiner D, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J . Fluoroscopically Guided Diagnostic and Therapeutic Intra-Articular Sacroiliac Joint Injections: A Systematic Review. Pain Med. 2015; 16(8):1500-18. DOI: 10.1111/pme.12833. View

12.

Laslett M . Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint. J Man Manip Ther. 2009; 16(3):142-52. PMC: 2582421. DOI: 10.1179/jmt.2008.16.3.142. View

13.

Schwartz S, Utts J, Spottiswoode S, Shade C, Tully L, Morris W . A double-blind, randomized study to assess the validity of applied kinesiology (AK) as a diagnostic tool and as a nonlocal proximity effect. Explore (NY). 2014; 10(2):99-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2013.12.002. View

14.

Waxenegger I, Endler P, Wulkersdorfer B, Spranger H . Individual prognosis regarding effectiveness of a therapeutic intervention using pre-therapeutic "kinesiology muscle test". ScientificWorldJournal. 2007; 7:1703-7. PMC: 5900945. DOI: 10.1100/tsw.2007.257. View

15.

Strine T, Hootman J . US national prevalence and correlates of low back and neck pain among adults. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57(4):656-65. DOI: 10.1002/art.22684. View

16.

Hansen H, McKenzie-Brown A, Cohen S, Swicegood J, Colson J, Manchikanti L . Sacroiliac joint interventions: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2007; 10(1):165-84. View

17.

van der Wurff P, Buijs E, Groen G . A multitest regimen of pain provocation tests as an aid to reduce unnecessary minimally invasive sacroiliac joint procedures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(1):10-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.09.023. View

18.

Arnbak B, Jurik A, Jensen R, Schiottz-Christensen B, van der Wurff P, Jensen T . The diagnostic value of three sacroiliac joint pain provocation tests for sacroiliitis identified by magnetic resonance imaging. Scand J Rheumatol. 2016; 46(2):130-137. DOI: 10.1080/03009742.2016.1184308. View

19.

Schmitt Jr W, Leisman G . Correlation of applied kinesiology muscle testing findings with serum immunoglobulin levels for food allergies. Int J Neurosci. 1999; 96(3-4):237-44. DOI: 10.3109/00207459808986471. View

20.

Cuthbert S, Goodheart Jr G . On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007; 15:4. PMC: 1847521. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1340-15-4. View