A comparison of manual diagnosis with a diagnosis established by a uni-level lumbar anaesthetic block procedure

SUMMARY. The study was designed to test if a manipulative therapist (MT) using manual examination techniques alone or when accompanied by a verbal response from the subject as to the pain produced, could diagnose the lumbar segmental level responsible for a subjects low back pain and referred pain. The study consisted of prospective and retrospective parts where the MTs manual diagnosis of the symptomatic lumbar segmental level was compared to a segmental level diagnosis attained by subsequent or previous spinal anaesthetic blocks. In the prospective part of the study the MT's manual diagnosis was 94.12% and 52.9% sensitive in detecting the symptomatic lumbar segmental level with verbal and non-verbal subject responses, respectively. In the retrospective part of the study the MTs manual diagnosis was found to be 60.86% and 47.82% sensitive in detecting the symptomatic lumbar segmental level with verbal and non-verbal subject responses, respectively. In the prospective study the MT's manual diagnosis showed 100% and 80% specificity in detecting subjects with no history of low back pain with verbal and non-verbal subject responses, respectively, and 100% and 75% specificity in the retrospective study with verbal and non-verbal subject responses, respectively. Inter-therapist reliability analysis for the recording of passive physiological intervertebral movements (PPIVMs), passive accessory intervertebral movements (PAIVMs) and ‘tissue response’ showed percentage agreement rates ranging from 55% to 99%; 74% to 100% and 43% to 100%, respectively, with weighted kappa values ranging from ?0.11 to 0.32; ?0.15 to 0.24 and kappa values ranging from -0.16 to 0.28, respectively. This study demonstrates that a MT's manual examination when accompanied by a verbal subject response, is highly accurate in detecting the lumbar segmental level responsible for a subjects complaint