Intertester Reliability and Diagnostic Validity of the Cervical Flexion-Rotation Test

• Published in: Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics Vol. 31; no. 4; pp. 293 - 300
• Main Authors: Hall, Toby M., PT, MSc, Robinson, Kim W., PT, BSc, Fujinawa, Osamu, PT, PhD, Akasaka, Kiyokazu, PT, PhD, Pyne, Elizabeth A., PT, MT
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Mosby, Inc 01.05.2008
• Subjects: Adult; Cervical Vertebrae - physiopathology; Diagnosis; Female; Headache; Headache - diagnosis; Humans; Observer Variation; Physical Examination; Physical Examination - methods; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Range of Motion, Articular; Reproducibility of Results; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity; Physical Examination; Headache; Reproducibility of Results; Diagnosis
• ISSN: 0161-4754; 1532-6586
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.03.012

Abstract Objective This article evaluates reliability and diagnostic validity of the cervical flexion-rotation test (FRT) to discriminate subjects with headache because of C1/2 dysfunction. In addition, this study evaluates agreement between experienced and inexperienced examiners. Methods These were 2 single blind comparative measurement study designs. In study 1, 2 experienced blinded examiners evaluated the FRT in 10 asymptomatic controls, 20 subjects with cervicogenic headache (CeH) where C1/2 was the primary dysfunctional level, and 10 subjects with CeH but without C1/2 as the primary dysfunctional level. In study 2, 2 inexperienced and 1 experienced blinded examiners evaluated the FRT in 12 subjects with CeH and 12 asymptomatic controls. Examiners were required to state whether the FRT was positive and also to determine range of rotation using a goniometer. An analysis of variance with planned orthogonal comparison, single measure intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1), and Bland-Altman plot were used to analyze FRT range of rotation between the examiners. Sensitivity, specificity, and examiner agreement for test interpretation were analyzed using cross tabulation and κ. Results In study 1, sensitivity and specificity of the FRT was 90% and 88% with 92% agreement for experienced examiners ( P < .001). Overall diagnostic accuracy was 89% ( P < .001) and κ = 0.85. In study 2, for inexperienced examiners, FRT mobility was significantly greater than for experienced examiners, but sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and κ values were all within clinically acceptable levels. Conclusions The FRT can be used accurately and reliably by inexperienced examiners and may be a useful aid in CeH evaluation.