STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests to identify stress fractures in the lower limb. BACKGROUND: Stress fractures are a bone-related overuse injury primarily occurring in the lower limb and commonly affecting running athletes and military personnel. Physical examination procedures and clinical tests are suggested for diagnosing stress fractures; however, data on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests have not been investigated through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in 8 electronic databases to identify diagnostic accuracy studies, published between January 1950 and June 2011, that evaluated clinical tests against a radiological diagnosis of lower-limb stress fracture. Retrieved articles were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and a meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Nine articles investigating 2 clinical procedures, therapeutic ultrasound (n = 7) and tuning fork testing (n = 2), met the study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was used to statistically analyze the data extracted from the ultrasound articles and demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55%, 73%), specificity of 63% (95% CI: 54%, 71%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.1 (95% CI: 1.1, 3.5), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1, 0.9). Tuning fork test data could not be pooled; however, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio ranged from 35% to 92%, 19% to 83%, 0.6 to 3.0, and 0.4 to 1.6, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review do not support the specific use of ultrasound or tuning forks as standalone diagnostic tests for lower-limb stress fractures. As the overall diagnostic accuracy of the tests investigated is not strong, based on the calculated likelihood ratios, it is recommended that radiological imaging should continue to be used for the confirmation and diagnosis of stress fractures of the lower limb. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnosis, level 1a–.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(9):760-771, Epub 19 July 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.4000

KEY WORDS: diagnosis, lower limb, tuning fork, ultrasound, validity

Letters to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows:

• "Early Prognostic Factors in Patients With Whiplash" and Author's Response
• "Staying Current in the Use of Ultrasound Imaging" and Author's Response
• "Differentiating the Soleus From the Gastrocnemius With the Heel Raise Test" and Author's Response

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(12):983-987. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.0202

STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study, using a repeated-measures, counterbalanced design. OBJECTIVES: To provide estimates on the average knee angle maintained, absolute knee angle error, and total repetitions performed during 2 versions of the heel raise test. BACKGROUND: The heel raise test is performed in knee extension (EHRT) to assess gastrocnemius and knee flexion (FHRT) for soleus. However, it has not yet been determined whether select knee angles are maintained or whether total repetitions differ between the clinical versions of the heel raise test. METHODS: Seventeen healthy males and females performed maximal heel raise repetitions in 0° (EHRT) and 30° (FHRT) of desired knee flexion. The average angle maintained and absolute error at the knee during the 2 versions, and total heel raise repetitions, were measured using motion analysis. Participants’ kinematic measures were fitted into a generalized estimation equation model to provide estimates on EHRT and FHRT performance applicable to the general population. RESULTS: The model estimates that average angles of 2.2° and 30.7° will be maintained at the knee by the general population during the EHRT and the FHRT, with an absolute angle error of 3.4° and 2.5°, respectively. In both versions, 40 repetitions should be completed. However, the average angles maintained by participants ranged from –6.3° to 21.6° during the EHRT and from 22.0° to 43.0° during the FHRT, with the highest absolute errors in knee position being 25.9° and 33.5°, respectively. CONCLUSION: On average, select knee angles will be maintained by the general population during the select heel raise test versions, but individualized performance is variable and total repetitions do not distinguish between versions. Clinicians should, therefore, interpret select heel raise test outcomes with caution when used to respectively assess and rehabilitate soleus and gastrocnemius function.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(7):505-513, Epub 18 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3489

KEY WORDS: Achilles tendon, ankle, triceps surae

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests used to diagnose patients with structural lumbar segmental instability (LSI). BACKGROUND: Patients with structural LSI represent an important, identifiable subgrouping of individuals with low back pain. Numerous clinical tests have been proposed to diagnose structural LSI; however, data on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests have not yet been evaluated through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in 6 electronic databases for diagnostic accuracy studies, published between January 1950 and March 2010, that evaluated clinical tests against radiological diagnosis of structural LSI. The diagnostic accuracy of the clinical tests from the retrieved articles was independently evaluated, reviewed, and quality scored using the QUADAS tool. RESULTS: Four articles and a total of 11 clinical tests used in the diagnosis of structural LSI met the study inclusion criteria. The majority of tests had high specificity but low sensitivity, with positive likelihood ratios ranging from very small to moderate. QUADAS scores ranged from 16 to 25 out of a possible 26. The passive lumbar extension test was the most accurate clinical test, with high sensitivity (84%), specificity (90%), and a positive likelihood ratio of 8.8 (95% CI: 4.5, 17.3), indicating that this clinical test may be useful in the differential diagnosis of structural LSI. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that the majority of clinical tests routinely employed to diagnose structural LSI demonstrated only limited ability to do so. The results do, however, indicate that the passive lumbar extension test may be useful in orthopaedic clinical practice to diagnose structural LSI. Additional research is required to further validate its use for diagnosing structural LSI in all populations of those with low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnosis, level 2a.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(3):130-140, Epub 2 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3457

KEY WORDS: accuracy, low back pain, physical examination, validity