Elsevier

Physiotherapy

Volume 93, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 201-211
Physiotherapy

Review
Measurement of range of movement in the lumbar spine—what methods are valid? A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2006.10.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the validity of low-tech procedures used in routine clinical practice to determine the range of movement of the lumbar spine in comparison to the ‘gold’ standard of measurement.

Data sources

AMED, CINAHL, Embase, OVID Medline, The Cochrane Library, Spine and other relevant journals.

Review methods

A search of electronic databases (January 2006) was complemented by hand searching reference lists of identified studies and journals, plus consultation with recognised experts to identify English language studies designed to evaluate the validity of low-tech procedures used to determine range of movement of the lumbar spine in adult human subjects presenting with non-specific low back pain.

Results

Four relevant studies were identified for analysis. Three studies investigated the use of the double-inclinometer method and one study investigated the modified-modified Schober test. The appraisal was performed using the modified QUADAS tool. The studies were considered heterogeneous and thus qualitative analysis was undertaken. This indicated limited positive evidence that the double-inclinometer method is valid for measuring total lumbar range of movement, conflicting evidence for double-inclinometer measurement of lumbar flexion range, limited evidence that the modified-modified Schober test is not valid for measurement of lumbar flexion range and limited evidence that the double-inclinometer method is not valid for measuring lumbar extension range.

Conclusion

There is little evidence to support the use of current methods of range of movement measurement in the lumbar spine. If range of movement is to continue to be used during routine clinical practice to assess spinal function, degree of impairment and response to therapeutic input there is a need for scientific evidence on the validity of these procedures.

Introduction

The diagnosis of low back pain remains controversial and uncertain [1]. The terms non-specific or mechanical low back pain have been commonly used for over a decade, describing a heterogeneous population of patients without specific pathology [2], [3]. Clinicians involved in the management of low back pain utilise physical examination to inform management and treatment. The physical examination of patients with low back pain consists of many components [4]. Range of movement is a key component of most physical examination processes [5] facilitating the assessment of spinal function, response to therapeutic input [6], determining work restrictions, functional capacity or even permanent impairment [7].

Various methods of quantification of range of movement have been advocated [8], [9]. These measures vary in complexity and include observation, tape measurement, goniometry (electrical, electromagnetic and mechanical), inclinometry (electrical and mechanical), flexible curve lineals and roentgenographic analysis [6], [8], [10], [11], [12], [13].

Roentgenographic or radiographic analysis is the recognised ‘gold standard’ for determining range of movement, but this is an expensive procedure with risk of exposure to radiation [8], [14]. Thus the costs and risks associated with roentgenographic analysis prevent its use in routine clinical practice. The preference is for quick, simple, inexpensive and minimally invasive diagnostic tests [15]. ‘Low-tech’ methods are favoured in routine clinical practice; for example, observation, tape measurement, mechanical goniometry, mechanical inclinometry and flexible curve lineals.

An electronic search of AMED (1985–2006), CINAHL (1982–2006), Embase (1974–2006), OVID Medline (1966–2006) and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews failed to identify any systematic reviews that evaluated the validity of procedures used to determine the range of movement of the lumbar spine. There is a need to identify valid tests used during clinical examination [16] and thus there is a need for such a systematic review.

The objective of this systematic review is to examine whether low-tech procedures used in routine clinical practice to determine the range of movement of the lumbar spine are of acceptable validity in comparison to the ‘gold’ standard of measurement.

Section snippets

Criteria for considering studies for the review

Table 1 lists the selection criteria, and further details are provided below.

Types of studies

For practical reasons, this review considers only English language studies that are designed to evaluate the validity of low-tech procedures used to determine the range of movement of the lumbar spine.

Types of participants

Studies that involved adult human subjects (>18 years) with non-specific low back pain were included. Low back pain is defined as pain localised below the lowest ribs and above the inferior gluteal folds [17].

Results

Following preliminary analysis via assessment of study titles, keywords and abstracts, a total of 86 studies were identified for full text analysis; 82 studies were excluded (Fig. 1). Reasons for exclusion were as follows: not in English language (1); incorrect study type—most commonly did not evaluate validity and measurement or were only descriptive in nature (48); not adult low back pain population (26); utilised high-tech procedures or failed to include gold/reference standard comparison

Discussion

Range of movement is commonly measured during routine clinical practice to assess spinal function and degree of impairment, as well as determining the response to therapeutic input. A range of low-tech procedures are used. Despite this, there is a lack of scientific evidence confirming the validity of these procedures against radiographic ‘gold standard’ measurements.

Despite identification of a wide range of potential studies, only four studies were included in this systematic review. A

Limitations

This review considered only English language studies, introducing the possibility of language bias. Although this limitation is common in systematic reviews it should be considered when interpreting the results. However, it should be noted that only one non-English language study was identified during the process and thus this limitation may only be minor. The second limitation of only one author selecting studies introduces the possibility of further selection bias. Again it is felt that this

Conclusions

In this systematic review, it was found that there is limited evidence that the DI method for measuring total lumbar range of movement is valid in comparison to the gold standard. This conclusion is drawn from only one relevant study of low methodological quality and so convincing conclusions cannot be made. There is conflicting evidence when considering the DI method for measuring lumbar flexion range of movement. There is limited evidence that the DI method for measuring lumbar extension

Acknowledgement

Conflict of interest: None.

References (39)

  • F.B. Ensink et al.

    Lumbar range of motion: influence of time of day and individual factors on measurements

    Spine

    (1996)
  • R. Neblett et al.

    Quantifying the lumbar flexion-relaxation phenomenon: theory, normative data and clinical applications

    Spine

    (2003)
  • J.K. Ng et al.

    Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: reliability of measurement and normative values

    Spine

    (2001)
  • G. Van Herp et al.

    Three-dimensional spinal kinematics: a study of range of movement in 100 healthy subjects aged 20 to 60+ years

    Rheumatology (Oxford)

    (2000)
  • S.W. Lee et al.

    Development and validation of a new technique for assessing lumbar spine motion

    Spine

    (2002)
  • T.G. Mayer et al.

    Spinal range of motion. Accuracy and sources of error with inclinometric measurement

    Spine

    (1997)
  • P.M. Saur et al.

    Lumbar range of motion: reliability and validity of the inclinometer technique in the clinical measurement of trunk flexibility

    Spine

    (1996)
  • M. Van Tulder et al.

    Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration back review group for spinal disorders

    Spine

    (1997)
  • P.D. Boline et al.

    Inter-examiner reliability of eight evaluative dimensions of lumbar segmental abnormality, Part II

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (1993)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Massage therapy treatment and outcomes in a patient with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: A case report

      2020, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
      Citation Excerpt :

      All other lumbar movements were measured using a goniometer. Previous literature showed varying results on reliability and validity of using a tape measure to evaluate flexion and extension of the lumbar spine (Littlewood and May, 2007; Norkin and White, 2009; Reese and Bandy, 2010; Rezvani et al., 2012; Robinson and Mengshoel, 2014; Tousignant et al., 2005). The goniometer's validity and reliability as a measuring tool also showed varying results depending on the joint and motion being measured (Kolber and Hanney, 2012; Norkin and White, 2009; O'Sullivan and Schmitz, 2001; Reese and Bandy, 2010; Shankman and Manske, 2011).

    • Change in Low Back Movement Patterns After Neurosurgical Intervention for Lumbar Spondylosis

      2018, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Improved diagnostic accuracy would confer obvious cost advantages to the health system for enabling treatment to focus on particular sources of pain and would enable pathology-specific interventions to be grouped for clinical research. A key component of clinical examination includes assessing the range of motion (ROM),10 indicating spinal function, painful movement directions, response to intervention, or even permanent impairment. The literature reports various movement assessments including functional activities of daily living,11 planar movements,12-14 and combined movement examinations (CMEs).15-17

    • Reliability of lumbar movement dysfunction tests for chronic low back pain patients

      2016, Manual Therapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Tests for MD are specifically comprised of 1) range of motion (ROM) (Laird et al., 2014), 2) movement control impairments (MCI) (Sahrmann, 2002; Luomajoki et al., 2007) and 3) tests for proprioception deficits such as reposition error tests (RE) (Rausch Osthoff et al., 2015). These tests typically consist of visual observation (Oesch et al., 2007) and do not quantify MD for diagnostic and outcome evaluation purposes (Seffinger et al., 2004; van Trijffel et al., 2005; May et al., 2006; Stochkendahl et al., 2006; Littlewood and May, 2007). To overcome these limitations, wireless movement analysis systems using body-worn sensors have recently been developed (e.g. Valedo® from Hocoma AG, ViMove from dorsaVi, or Reablo® from Corehab).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text