Table 3 Evidence Tables

McAviney, 2005 [45]

Study of criterion validity

(Phase 1 for AWB and Phase 2 for ARA)

n = 277

Cervical x-rays from randomly selected patients from Summer Hill Chiropractic Outpatient Clinic (Macquarie University, Australia), over 7 years

Exclusion: moderate to severe degenerative changes; cervical spine with obvious lordosis and kyphosis; history of trauma.

Sagittal cervical alignment on x-ray films using posterior tangent method: ARA of cervical lordosis from C2-C7, AWB of the head (horizontal distance of posterior superior body of C2 compared to vertical line from posterior inferior body of C7)

Partitioned into categories with increments of 5°

Presence/Absence of cervical complaints: patients’ records, history in intern’s radiology report and x-ray referral slip

ARA:

Cervical complaint: 9.6°

Non-cervical complaint: 23.4°

ARA < 20° (to identify cervical complaint)

Sn: 0.724

Sp: 0.737

AUC: 0.803

AWB:

Cervical complaint: 21.3 mm

Non-cervical complaint: 21.1 mm

NS difference between groups

McGregor, 1995 [46]

Phase 2 study

n = 512

New patients, > 18 YO, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College outpatient clinic, neck and/or head pain, excluding patients diagnosed with pathology

Asymptomatic subjects from small normative group from a different study

Assessed for intersegmental clinical hypermobility: mobility of a given motion unit in the cervical spine which is excessive and is accompanied by local and/or peripheral symptoms

AP, lateral, AP open-mouth, forward flexion and extension cervical radiographs

Including history and physical examination findings summarized in a standardized case report form

AP, lateral, AP open-mouth cervical radiographs

Including history and physical examination findings summarized in a standardized case report form

With flexion-extension radiographs (3 raters):

Sn: 0.65–0.89

Sp: 0.49–0.92

Without flexion-extension radiographs (3 raters):

Sn: 0.11–0.91

Sp: 0.64–0.99