Lumbar Diagnosis and Pressure Difference Variance.

IF 1.1
Navya Voleti, Michael A Gaspari, Elizabeth George, Nicole Angelo, Sheldon Yao
{"title":"Lumbar Diagnosis and Pressure Difference Variance.","authors":"Navya Voleti,&nbsp;Michael A Gaspari,&nbsp;Elizabeth George,&nbsp;Nicole Angelo,&nbsp;Sheldon Yao","doi":"10.7556/jaoa.2020.066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>There is no consensus on the correlation between clinical experience and accuracy in diagnosing somatic dysfunctions, which makes it difficult to justify the use of more subjective measures to evaluate this important association. To better understand this relationship, palpatory forces can be observed while diagnosing a somatic dysfunction.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the pressure applied in diagnosing lumbar somatic dysfunction, find a correlation between accuracy of diagnosis and palpation pressure, set the standards for palpation, and develop precise palpatory skills for osteopathic medical students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The palpatory forces were evaluated between participants with varying experience levels (osteopathic medical students and attending physicians from the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine). Two osteopathic physicians confirmed an L5 somatic dysfunction diagnosis in a volunteer standardized patient (SP), who served as the control. Participants then palpated the lumbar segment of the SP in a prone position with F-Scan System (TekScan) sensors, which recorded the amount of pressure and time used to reach a full diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (11 osteopathic medical students and 10 attending physicians) who diagnosed an L5 somatic dysfunction consistent with the SP's diagnosis had less of a difference in peak force (mean [SD] difference, 62.50 [325.7] g/cm2) between the contact points (right hand vs left hand). In contrast, participants with a dissimilar L5 diagnosis from the SP's had a mean (SD) difference in peak force of 319.38 (703.1) g/cm2. Similarly, the difference in the mean (SD) force of palpation between the contact points was lower in participants who made the correct diagnosis (16.81 [117.4] g/cm2) vs those who made an incorrect diagnosis (123.92 [210.3] g/cm2). No statistical significance was found between the diagnostic accuracy of the students and physicians (P=.387) or the time taken to reach a diagnosis (P=.199).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed that using equal pressures in both hands while palpating a lumbar segment correlates to more accurate somatic dysfunction diagnoses.</p>","PeriodicalId":47816,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","volume":"120 6","pages":"e86-e91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: There is no consensus on the correlation between clinical experience and accuracy in diagnosing somatic dysfunctions, which makes it difficult to justify the use of more subjective measures to evaluate this important association. To better understand this relationship, palpatory forces can be observed while diagnosing a somatic dysfunction.

Objective: To quantify the pressure applied in diagnosing lumbar somatic dysfunction, find a correlation between accuracy of diagnosis and palpation pressure, set the standards for palpation, and develop precise palpatory skills for osteopathic medical students.

Methods: The palpatory forces were evaluated between participants with varying experience levels (osteopathic medical students and attending physicians from the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine). Two osteopathic physicians confirmed an L5 somatic dysfunction diagnosis in a volunteer standardized patient (SP), who served as the control. Participants then palpated the lumbar segment of the SP in a prone position with F-Scan System (TekScan) sensors, which recorded the amount of pressure and time used to reach a full diagnosis.

Results: Participants (11 osteopathic medical students and 10 attending physicians) who diagnosed an L5 somatic dysfunction consistent with the SP's diagnosis had less of a difference in peak force (mean [SD] difference, 62.50 [325.7] g/cm2) between the contact points (right hand vs left hand). In contrast, participants with a dissimilar L5 diagnosis from the SP's had a mean (SD) difference in peak force of 319.38 (703.1) g/cm2. Similarly, the difference in the mean (SD) force of palpation between the contact points was lower in participants who made the correct diagnosis (16.81 [117.4] g/cm2) vs those who made an incorrect diagnosis (123.92 [210.3] g/cm2). No statistical significance was found between the diagnostic accuracy of the students and physicians (P=.387) or the time taken to reach a diagnosis (P=.199).

Conclusion: We observed that using equal pressures in both hands while palpating a lumbar segment correlates to more accurate somatic dysfunction diagnoses.

腰椎诊断与压差方差。
背景:关于临床经验与诊断躯体功能障碍的准确性之间的相关性尚无共识,这使得很难证明使用更主观的措施来评估这一重要关联是合理的。为了更好地理解这种关系,在诊断躯体功能障碍时可以观察到触诊力。目的:量化诊断腰椎躯体功能障碍的压力,探讨诊断准确性与触诊压力的相关性,为骨科医学生制定触诊标准,培养准确的触诊技能。方法:对不同经验水平的参与者(来自纽约理工学院骨科医学院的骨科医学生和主治医生)的触诊力进行评估。两名骨科医生证实了一名志愿者标准化患者(SP)的L5躯体功能障碍诊断,该患者作为对照。然后,参与者用f扫描系统(TekScan)传感器以俯卧姿势触诊SP的腰椎段,记录下达到全面诊断所需的压力和时间。结果:诊断为与SP诊断一致的L5躯体功能障碍的参与者(11名骨科医学院学生和10名主治医生)在接触点(右手与左手)之间的峰值力差异较小(平均[SD]差异,62.50 [325.7]g/cm2)。相比之下,与SP的L5诊断不同的参与者在峰值力的平均(SD)差异为319.38 (703.1)g/cm2。同样,在做出正确诊断的参与者(16.81 [117.4]g/cm2)与做出错误诊断的参与者(123.92 [210.3]g/cm2)中,接触点之间的平均(SD)触诊力的差异更低。学生和医生的诊断准确性(P=.387)和达到诊断所需的时间(P=.199)之间无统计学意义。结论:我们观察到,在触诊腰椎节段时使用双手等量压力与更准确的躯体功能障碍诊断相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association is the official scientific publication of the American Osteopathic Association, as well as the premier scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of the osteopathic medical profession. The JAOA"s mission is to advance medicine through the scholarly publication of peer-reviewed osteopathic medical research. The JAOA"s goals are: 1. To be the authoritative scholarly publication of the osteopathic medical profession 2. To advance the traditional tenets of osteopathic medicine while encouraging the development of emerging concepts relevant to the profession"s distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信