Search for other papers by True Martin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christopher R. Brigham in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charles N. Brooks in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the neurological examination and diagnostic studies commonly used in the evaluation of low back pain, information that is essential for both clinical assessment and impairment rating in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Clinical evaluation begins with a careful review of medical records. After taking a thorough history, the physician performs the physical examination, including neurological testing, on the patient. The clinical evaluation also determines data needed for impairment evaluation. Neurological examination helps distinguish among the various types of pathology suggested by the history, but to some extent the neurological examination lacks sensitivity and specificity and only about two-thirds (69%) of patients with documented L4-L5 or L5-S1 disc herniations demonstrated weakness or deep tendon reflex changes. To maximize information from the evaluation, physicians routinely test for nonorganic physical signs. Isolated positive signs have no clinical or predictive value, and only a score of three or more positive signs is considered clinically significant. Further, these tests were not designed to detect malingering. Used in isolation, the history, neurological examination, and various diagnostic studies do not have the necessary sensitivity and specificity to diagnose and identify the structural pathology responsible for lumbar radiculopathy. Integrating these components into a logical, unbiased evaluation, physicians usually can perform an accurate assessment.
-
1
Howard JF. Evaluation and treatment of low back pain. In: Evans RW, ed. Neurology and Trauma. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1996.
-
2
Liveson JA. Peripheral Neurology Case Studies in Electrodiagnosis. 2nd ed. Part 2. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company; 1991:80.
-
3
Novy DM, Collins HS, Nelson DV, Thomas AG, Wiggins M, Martinez, Irving GA. Waddell signs: distributional properties and correlates. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:820–822.
-
4
Andersson GBJ, Deyo RA. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value: a general issue in screening for disease in interpretation of diagnostic studies in spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer JW, ed. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Raven; 1997:305–317.
-
5
Waddell G, McCulloch JA, Kummel E, Venner, R. Nonorganic Physical Signs in Low-Back Pain. Spine. 1980;5:117–125.
-
6
American Academy of Neurology. American Academy of Neurology Practice Handbook. St Paul, MN: American Academy of Neurology; 1999:175.
-
7
American Academy of Neurology. American Academy of Neurology Practice Handbook. St Paul, MN: American Academy of Neurology; 1999:357.
-
8
Wiesel S. The reliability of imaging (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, myelography) in documenting the cause of spinal pain. J Manipulative Physiological Therapeutics. 1992;15:51–53.
-
9
Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadski MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. New Engl J Med. 1994;331:69–73.
-
10
Brown WF, Bolton CT, eds. Clinical Electromyography. 2nd ed. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Hinemann; 1993:180.
-
11
Brown WF, Bolton CT, eds. Clinical Electromyography. 2nd ed. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Hinemann; 1993:186.
-
12
Fisher MA. H Reflexes and F Waves: Physiology and Clinical Indications. Rochester, MN: American Association of Electro-diagnostic Medicine; 1992:8. AAEM Minimonograph #13.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 931 | 931 | 86 |
| Full Text Views | 29 | 29 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
