Abstract
Purpose
This review aimed to identify effective physical performance tests (PPT) as clinical outcome indicators for detecting and monitoring degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).
Methods
A comprehensive literature search was performed on seven electronic databases on the effectiveness in detection and monitoring of DCM by PPT. All included studies were reviewed and undergone quality assessments on the risk-of-bias by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and were pooled by random-effect analysis with level of significance at 0.05. Homogeneity among studies was assessed by I2-statistics and effect of PPT was confirmed by Cohen’s d effect size and confidence intervals.
Results
Totally, 3111 articles were retrieved, and 19 studies were included for review and meta-analysis. There were 13 studies investigating PPT regarding the upper limbs and 12 studies regarding the lower limbs. Performance in 10-second-Grip-and-Release Test (G&R) and 9-Hole-Peg Test (9HPT) was studied in 10 and 3 articles, respectively, while 10-second-Stepping Test (SST), 30-meter-Walking Test (30MWT) and Foot-Tapping Test (FTT) for lower limbs were studied in 5, 4, and 3 articles correspondingly. Only 1 study utilized the Triangle-Stepping Test. High-quality study with fair risk-of-bias was revealed from Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Large effect size facilitated detection and monitoring in DCM was unveiling for G&R, 9HPT, SST, and 30MWT. FTT, while also effective, was hindered by a high-degree heterogeneity in the meta-analysis.
Conclusion
Effective PPT including G&R, 9HPT, SST, 30MWT, and FTT was identified for disease detection and monitoring in DCM.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a chronic progressive degenerative disease predominantly affecting elderly aged 50 and over [1,2,3]. DCM is usually diagnosed with a combination of radiological tests, clinical tests, and a series of functional scoring. Hoffmann’s sign, Finger Escape Sign, Scapulo-humeral Reflex, and Reverse Supinator Reflex are tested as the special signs of DCM [4,5,6,7]. The functional deficits are assessed by Nurick Scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scoring System for Cervical Myelopathy (JOA) [8, 9]. Several self-reported questionnaires are adopted for quantifying disturbances on physical functions and quality of life in DCM [10,11,12], including the JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Health-related Quality of Life Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Hand clumsiness and gait disturbance are the featured clinical manifestations [1, 13,14,15,16], and physical performance tests (PPT) become the key reflection of capability in DCM. However, 10-second Grip and Release Test (G&R) is the only-accepted PPT currently in the diagnosis of DCM [17,18,19], which is undoubtedly insufficient to examine the wide-ranging functional deficits in DCM.
Currently, the clinical monitoring of DCM relies on few neurological signs and self-evaluating questionnaires, which may be influenced by post-operative wound pain and associated physical limitations [20]. Outcome indicators based on function may reinforce the accuracy in clinical decision. Consequently, the importance of PPT is arising in evaluating outcomes following cervical spinal surgery [21]. A number of studies have investigated the effect of PPT on post-operative monitoring in DCM [8, 19, 22, 23], yet knowledge is still limited [24]. PPT as an indicator for functional deficits in DCM remains unclear in influencing clinical management pathways.
To augment the evidence in the clinical practice for DCM, effective assessment tools in indicating the physical performance are essential for DCM to unveil the outcome toward success. The present review aims (1) to investigate the effectiveness of PPT in differentiating between DCM and healthy controls; and (2) to identify the efficacy of PPT as outcome indicators during post-operative clinical monitoring of DCM.
Materials and methods
A systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. This review protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42021220905). The literature search in online databases, including AMED, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and Web of Science was performed with language restriction to English; from the inception of the databases to April 13, 2022.
Search strategy
The literature search implemented with search terms [“CERVICAL” AND “DEGENERATI*” AND “MYELOPATH*”] AND [“CLINICAL” OR “PHYSICAL” OR “NEUROLOGICAL” OR “FUNCTIONAL”] AND [“ASSESSMENT” OR “TEST*” OR “EXAMINATION*” OR “EVALUATION*”] (Appendix 1). Retrieval of additional relevant studies was conducted through the forward citation search via Scopus and manual searching of reference lists was performed to avoid omitting of any relevant studies that may missed throughout the adopted searching strategy.
The inclusion criteria were strictly adhered along the study extraction, which included (1) study design: randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort or case-control studies; (2) study population: DCM; and (3) valid, reliable, non-instrumental and quick-administrated physical performance tests. Articles were excluded if (1) DCM patients had other neurological conditions; (2) PPT required a sophisticated experimental setup; (3) official or legitimate registration was required in the application of PPT; (4) no statistical comparison between PPT and Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scoring System for Cervical Myelopathy (mJOA); and (5) non-human studies, case reports, and review articles.
Study selection and data acquisition
Two reviewers (KP & KL) implemented study selection independently and inter-reviewer discrepancies were compromised between reviewers. The study selection was started from eliminating duplicates, followed by title-abstract screening and full-text screening. The credentials of each study were extracted, including the author’s name, year of publication, country of origin, research design, total sample size, DCM confirmation method, confounding factors (i.e., age and sex), testing functions, and measurements of PPT. Statistical data were tabulated as the sample size, mean, and standard deviation from each study group for further analysis.
Quality assessment
The risk of bias in the studies were scrutinized by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS); the case-control and cohort studies were scored separately. “NOS” is a 9-item criterion-specific evaluation on sample selection, analyses of bias and quality of exposure. One star scored, only when minimum standard was met; the maximum score was nine stars. More stars achieved indicated lower risk of bias and higher quality of the article. A high-quality study with the lowest risk of bias scored “7 or more stars,” while “4 to 6 stars” suggested moderate-quality and medium risk of bias. Low-quality paper with very high risk of bias scored 4 stars or less [25].
Meta-analysis
In the meta-analysis, mean scores of PPT in DCM and non-DCM controls were compared in case-control studies, while the effectiveness of PPT between pre-operative (Pre-op) and post-operative (Post-op) performance were weighed in the cohort studies. Differences in “DCM vs. Controls” and “Pre-op vs. Post-op” groups were assessed through pooled estimates obtained from the random effect analysis model and the statistical method of inverse variance. The corresponding mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed with the level of significance set at 0.05. The homogeneity among comparison was assessed by I2 statistics [9], with a value ≤ 25% indicating high homogeneity, 26-74% indicating moderate heterogeneity, and ≥ 75% indicating an extremely high heterogeneity.
Review Manager Version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, UK) was employed for data synthesis. The effect of PPT was confirmed by computing the Cohen’s d effect size (ES) and CI with the effect size calculator, Campbell Collaboration [7]. The ES of 0.2 to 0.3 is considered as “small,” 0.5 as “medium” and > 0.8 as “large” effect [24].
Results
The initial literature search yielded 3111 articles and 1531 were remained after the removal of duplicates, and 1505 articles were excluded in the title-abstract screening with strictly adhering to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional 8 citations were found in the forward citation search and finally 26 studies were remained for full-text screening. Amongst, 15 studies were eliminated owing to the absence of correlating with mJOA, or insufficient information for data synthesis and meta-analysis. After all, a total of 19 studies were included, 5 prospective cohort studies, 13 prospective and 1 retrospective case-control studies (Fig. 1). There were 6359 subjects altogether in this review (Tables 1, 2).
Risk of bias assessment
The mean scores in NOS case-control study and cohort study were 5.36 and 5.60, respectively, which suggested moderate quality with medium risk of bias (Table 3, 4). Four case-control studies were at high quality (28.6%), 10 were at moderate quality (71.4%), and only 1 low-quality studies (7.1%) with high risk of bias scoring 3 stars was included. All cohort studies had moderate quality and medium risk of bias; 2 studies (40%) scored 5 stars and 3 (60%) scored 6 stars.
The fulfilment of NOS was generally low in components of “selection” (20-50%), “comparability” (0-43%), and “exposure” (36%) as shown in tables 4 and 5. The absence of clear definition in control subjects and confounding factors (e.g., age, sex), and having no blinding of subject status, was identified as key limitations of this review.
Physical performance tests
There were 6 PPT identified and grouped into 2 domains: upper limb (13 studies, 50%) and lower limb (12 studies, 46%). They were all time-speed tests assessing the maximum performance within a fixed time limit or the time requirement for completing a structured task. The upper limb domain was comprised of 10-second Grip and Release Test (G&R) (10 studies, 52.6%) and Nine Hole Peg Test (9HPT) (3 studies, 11.5%). G&R assessed the maximum repetitions of reciprocal full opening and fisting of a single hand within 10 seconds. 9HPT tested the fine finger dexterity by charting the time spent on placing and removing nine round-pegs on the pegboard. G&R and 9HPT assessed the dominant and non-dominant hands separately. Similarly, the 10-second Stepping Test (SST) (5 studies, 19.2%), 30-meter Walking Test (30MWT) (4 studies, 15.4%), Foot Tapping Test (FTT) (3 studies, 11.5%), and Triangle Stepping Test (TST) (1 study, 3.8%) formed the lower limb domain. SST and 30MWT evaluated reciprocal concurrent coordination between both lower limbs concurrently, while FTT and TST assessed both lower limbs separately [9, 26, 27] (Table 5).
Meta-analysis on detection of DCM
Although 6 PPT were summarized on the effect in detecting DCM, TST was described in a single article; thus, only the 5 remaining tests were pooled and clustered into the “upper limb” and “lower limb” groups for meta-analysis. The lower limb cluster consisted of SST, 30MWT and FTT. Studies on SST demonstrated a high degree of homogeneity with Tau2 of 0.00, I2 indices of 0%, 95%CI ranged from -4.91 to -3.49 and MD of -4.20, while ES was excellent at 11.53 with p < 0.00001. Likewise, 30MWT had a high degree of homogeneity (Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0%, MD = 0.86, 95%CI = -2.10-3.82); however, the effect size was small and not significant (ES = 0.57, p = 0.57). A satisfactory ES was found 7.75 (p < 0.00001) in FTT, though the Tau2 of 2.75, I2 indices of 91%, MD of -7.84 and 95%CI ranging from -9.82 to -5.89 indicated a high degree of heterogeneity. (Fig. 2).
Analyses of the upper limb cluster, G&R and 9HPT showed a significant homogeneity with Tau2 of 0.28, I2 indices of 25%, MD of -5.58 and 95%CI ranged from -6.13 to -5.03, ES was great at 19.85 with p < 0.00001, whereas 9HPT had a relatively lower ES at 5.11 (p < 0.00001) and equally homogeneous with Tau2 of 0.00, I2 indices of 0% and MD of 9.89 (Fig. 3).
Meta-analysis on clinical monitoring of DCM
There were 5 tests pooled for meta-analysis on clinical monitoring, G&R and 9HPT for upper limbs; 30MWT, SST and FTT for lower limbs. The pooled studies on 9HPT (Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0%, ES = 2.87, p = 0.004, MD = -7.63, 95%CI = -12.84 to -2.41), and G&R (Tau2 = 0.06, I2 = 15%, ES = 18.97, p < 0.00001, MD = 3.58, 95%CI = 3.21-3.95) demonstrated a high degree of homogeneity in the upper limb cluster as shown in Fig. 4.
The highest degree of homogeneity was shown in 30MWT with ES at 15.58 with p < 0.00001, Tau2 of 0.00, I2 indices of 0%, MD of -12.58 and 95%CI ranged from -13.90 to -11.25. SST was equally homogeneous as 30MWT with ES at 13.36, p < 0.00001, Tau2 of 0.00, I2 indices of 0%, MD of 3.19 and 95%CI ranging from 2.72 to 3.66. FTT demonstrated substantial heterogeneity with a high I2 indices of 84% and an insignificant ES at 1.85 with p = 0.06 (Tau2 = 7.80, MD = 3.97, 95%CI = -0.23 to 8.18) as shown in Fig. 5.
Discussion
Impaired functional performance is a crucial element in diagnosing DCM [28], yet few functional performance tests were available and accessible for clinical assessment. Functional performance testing is usually implemented in laboratories with sophisticated setup or requires expensive self-designed tools in assessing limb functions [29, 30], such as the VICON three-dimensional motion capture system for motion analysis [31,32,33,34]. The psychometric properties of the tests were rarely analyzed, especially the experimental trials. Validated clinical evaluation for DCM, for instance, the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensation and Prehension for Myelopathy (GRASSP-M), required mandatory certification for practice [35] and was usually lengthy. In general, lengthy assessment tools were not desired by clinicians owing to their packed schedules. To enforce their practicability, PPT should preferably be non-instrumental and quick-administered. The use of PPT may enhance the clinical documentation and reduce certain operation gap among diagnosis, monitoring, and decision-making in DCM.
The present review summarized 6 PPT for the detection and clinical monitoring of DCM. G&R and 9HPT evaluated the upper limbs; while 30MWT, FTT, SST, and TST assessed the lower limbs. The performance in activities of daily living, specifically those involved fine hand manipulation and coordination in walking, are believed to be in line with the somatosensory and sensorimotor deficits resulting from cervical spinal cord compression in DCM [36,37,38,39,40]. Most commonly, the cord compression in DCM occurs in the sagittal plane [41]; the dorsal column and corticospinal tract are usually affected and they are responsible for proprioception and motor coordination, respectively [9, 42]. Thus, DCM is predominantly associated with hand clumsiness and gait disturbance [10, 11, 43,44,45]. As a consequence of incoordination of the upper or lower limbs, inadequate performance detected by PPT should indicate definite functional deficits in daily living. These PPT were all validated to DCM against normal performance of the healthy controls and have been developed for different cultural ethnicities [19, 43, 46]. In this review, the sensitivity and specificity of PPT were not addressed statistically. Clinically, sensitivity and specificity of each PPT are important in identifying the characteristic and treatment effect in DCM; therefore, further study is essential to strengthen the application of PPT in diagnosis and monitoring of DCM.
The most impacting functional deficit was labeled as the balance during standing and walking [47]. The prerequisite in body coordination for making steps during walking was proprioception sense over the ankle joints [1, 48]. In DCM, stiff and clumsy ankle movement caused by spasticity or incoordination is a key indication for seeking medical advice [49, 50]. The ankle motor deficiency was expected to be assessed effectively by FTT, an quick-administered, unilateral, and single joint time-speed test of ankle joint coordination [51,52,53]. Nevertheless, FTT was excluded from the meta-analysis on account of high I2 indices denoting its severe heterogeneity that may perhaps justify by the insufficient number of articles [54,55,56]. Despite the extremely high I2 value at 84% in the pooled analysis of FTT studies, effect size was high at 7.75 (p < 0.00001). Hence, FTT could still consider as an effective tool and further study on its application may create less heterogeneity on effective detection and clinical monitoring of DCM. The present findings suggested a certain degree of inconsistency and clinicians should be expected to use FTT with caution.
In the quality assessment, the overall mean score assessed by NOS was 5.36 and 5.60 among the case-control and cohort studies, respectively, which indicated fair quality with moderate risk of bias may possibly be occurred during the analysis. This constraint was attenuated by studies having an ideal homogeneity as almost all I2 indices were bounded below 25% in this meta-analysis. Furthermore, “comparability” was found to be the most critical element in aggravating the risk of bias in quality assessment, a consistent limitation among case-control studies. The confounding factors, “Sex” and “Age,” were not mentioned in most of the case-control studies or upon subgroup analysis; only 36% to 43% of articles had addressed the variance among the confounding factors. “Assessment Exposure” was missed in 9 studies, 47.4% of the total number of included studies. Without blinding to subject-control assignment, bias of evaluators may have been brought about during the tests. Thus, independent blinded assessment was preferred to avoid observer bias.
While Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has an extraordinary importance in diagnosing DCM [57,58,59,60], functional deficits induced by the spinal cord compression remain dependent upon clinical assessment rather than imaging [28]. Therefore mJOA was adopted as a clinical outcome measure for DCM since 1980, and later as an universal golden standard [24, 61,62,63,64]. Moreover, it was recently adopted as triage for surgical intervention in DCM according to AO Spine 2017 International Consensus Guidelines [28]. Although PPT has become more imperative during diagnosis, clinical monitoring and surgical decision for DCM [6, 65, 66], preference on G&R could be noted worldwide [13, 17, 67]. In addition, the general acceptance of other PPT as outcome measures in DCM was not high, and thus only a few studies on 9HPT, FTT, SST, and 30MWT were available for review, regardless of good psychometric properties in assessing DCM [68, 69]. This phenomenon became the most limiting constraint in this review; lacking available studies for review may produce a distinct impact on the effect size in the meta-analysis leading to a high degree of heterogeneity. Perhaps, underestimation on the effect of PPT in detecting DCM may possibly be arose from committing an error of concluding with “no effect” when it actually existed [70]. Furthermore, several non-English articles on PPT for DCM were excluded, and some significant information may possibly be missed owing to the language limitation in the initial screening stage.
Conclusion
In the diagnosis of DCM, incorporation of MRI, mJOA and PPT are well-accepted as golden standard worldwide and the preference on PPT is biased toward G&R owing to its popularity. The use of other PPT such as 9HPT, SST, 30MWT, and FTT was rare, even though they were proven as effective and specific in the detection and clinical monitoring of DCM. This review has given an insight to clinicians in adopting comprehensive assessments including G&R, 9HPT, SST, 30MWT, and FTT as alliance diagnostic and monitoring tools in the early detection and along the clinical management pathway for DCM.
In view of the fair quality and insufficient number of articles available, Foot Tapping Test (FTT) was found effective with heterogeneity, therefore further studies on various PPT with addressing the confounding factors, “Sex” and “Age,” and the “Assessment Exposure” are necessary to enhance its efficacy.
References
Yamaguchi S, Mitsuhara T, Abiko M et al (2018) Epidemiology and overview of the clinical spectrum of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 29:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.001
Tetreault LA, Karadimas S, Wilson JR et al (2017) The natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy and the rate of hospitalization following spinal cord injury: an updated systematic review. Glob Spine J 7:28S-34S. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217700396
Pinto EM, Teixeira A, Frada R et al (2020) Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a review of current concepts. Coluna/ Columna 19:302–307. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-185120201904233163
Niu HX, Wang RH, Xu HL et al (2017) Nine-hole peg test and ten-meter walk test for evaluating functional loss in Chinese Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 130:1773–1778. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.211550
Banaszek A, Bladowska J, Podgórski P et al (2016) Role of diffusion tensor MR imaging in degenerative cervical spine disease: a review of the literature. Clin Neuroradiol 26:265–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-015-0467-y
Id BH, Tempest-mitchell J, Davies BM, et al. (2019) Cord compression defined by MRI is the driving factor behind the decision to operate in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy despite poor correlation with disease severity. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226020
Nardone R, Höller Y, Brigo F et al (2016) The contribution of neurophysiology in the diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review. Spinal Cord 54:756–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.82
Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P et al (2016) A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 24:77–99. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.SPINE14971
Singh A, Crockard HA (1999) Quantitative assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a simple walking test. Lancet 354:370–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10199-X
Davies BM, McHugh M, Elgheriani A et al (2017) The reporting of study and population characteristics in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172564
Nagoshi N, Tsuji O, Okada E et al (2019) Clinical indicators of surgical outcomes after cervical single open-door laminoplasty assessed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire. Spinal Cord 57:644–651. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-019-0258-4
Chikuda H, Koyama Y, Matsubayashi Y et al (2021) Effect of early vs delayed surgical treatment on motor recovery in incomplete cervical spinal cord injury with preexisting cervical stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33604
Nagata K, Yoshimura N, Hashizume H et al (2019) Physical performance decreases in the early stage of cervical myelopathy before the myelopathic signs appear: the Wakayama Spine Study. Eur Spine J 28:1217–1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05907-4
Machino M, Ando K, Kobayashi K et al (2020) Prediction of outcome following laminoplasty of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Focus on the minimum clinically important difference. J Clin Neurosci 81:321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.09.065
Suh DC, Song Y, Park D et al (2018) New grading system for the clinical evaluation of patients with spinal vascular lesions. Neuroradiology 60:1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2076-3
Vidal PM, Karadimas SK, Ulndreaj A et al (2017) Delayed decompression exacerbates ischemia-reperfusion injury in cervical compressive myelopathy. JCI insight 2:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.92512
Okita G, Ohba T, Takamura T et al (2018) Application of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging or diffusion tensor imaging to quantify the severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and to assess postoperative neurologic recovery. Spine J 18:268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.07.007
Omori M, Shibuya S, Nakajima T, et al. (2018) Hand Dexterity Impairment in Patients with Cervical Myelopathy: A New Quantitative Assessment Using a Natural Prehension Movement. Behav Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5138234
Machino M, Ando K, Kobayashi K et al (2019) Cut off value in each gender and decade of 10-s grip and release and 10-s step test: A comparative study between 454 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and 818 healthy subjects. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 184:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105414
Liu S, Yang SD, Fan XW et al (2019) Analyses of effect factors associated with the postoperative dissatisfaction of patients undergoing open-door laminoplasty for cervical OPLL: A retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res 14:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1208-8
Hermansen AMK, Cleland JA, Kammerlind ASC et al (2014) Evaluation of physical function in individuals 11 to 14 years after anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery - a comparison between patients and healthy reference samples and between 2 surgical techniques. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 37:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.11.002
Machino M, Yukawa Y, Imagama S, et al. (2018) Surgical treatment assessment of cervical laminoplasty using quantitative performance evaluation in elderly patients a prospective comparative study in 505 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:757–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001313
Nouri A, Gondar R, Cheng JS et al (2020). Degenerative cervical myelopathy and the aging spine: introduction to the special issue. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082535
Singh A, Tetreault L, Casey A et al (2015) A summary of assessment tools for patients suffering from cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review on validity, reliability and responsiveness. Eur Spine J 24:209–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2935-x
Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L et al (2008) Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical myelopathy: An updated predictive model. Eur Spine J 17:421–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0585-1
Wada E, Fukui M, Takahashi K et al (2019) Japanese orthopaedic association cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ): Part 5. Determination of responsiveness J Orthop Sci 24:57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.08.015
Yang YM, Yoo WK, Yoo JH et al (2017) The functional relevance of diffusion tensor imaging in comparison to conventional MRI in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Skeletal Radiol 46:1477–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2713-7
Davies BM, Mowforth O, Wood H et al (2022) Improving awareness could transform outcomes in degenerative cervical myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 1]. Glob Spine J 12:28S-38S. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211050927
Noguchi N, Lee B, Kamiya S et al (2020) Grip force control during object manipulation in cervical myelopathy. Spinal Cord 58:689–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0414-x
Funayama T, Mataki K, Abe T et al (2020) Thoracic myelopathy caused by ossification of the yellow ligament as a distal adjacent segmental disease after posterior cervical-middle thoracic fusion surgery. Case Rep Orthop 2020:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7101496
Nagai T, Takahashi Y, Endo K et al (2018) Analysis of spastic gait in cervical myelopathy: linking compression ratio to spatiotemporal and pedobarographic parameters. Gait Posture 59:152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.013
Haddas R, Patel S, Arakal R et al (2018) Spine and lower extremity kinematics during gait in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 18:1645–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.04.006
Haddas R, Ju KL (2019) Gait Alteration in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Elucidated by Ground Reaction Forces. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)44:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002732
Rodrigues TB, Catháin C, Devine D, et al. (2019) An evaluation of a 3D multimodal marker-less motion analysis system. Proc 10th ACM Multimed Syst Conf MMSys 2019:213–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304109.3306236
Kalsi-Ryan S, Riehm LE, Tetreault L et al (2020) Characteristics of upper limb impairment related to degenerative cervical myelopathy: development of a sensitive hand assessment (graded redefined assessment of strength, sensibility, and prehension version myelopathy). Clin Neurosurg 86:E292–E299. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz499
Osumi M, Sumitani M, Abe H et al (2019) Kinematic evaluation for impairment of skilled hand function in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. J Hand Ther 32:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2017.06.003
Gärtner FR, Marinus J, van den Hout WB et al (2020) The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale: development and evaluation of a new functional outcome measure for cervical radicular syndrome. Disabil Rehabil 42:1894–1905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1534996
Hager-Ross C, Schieber MH (2000) Quantifying the independence of human finger movements: comparisons of digits, hands, and movement frequencies. J Neurosci 20:8542–8550. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-22-08542.2000
Elnoamany H (2016) Sensitivity of pyramidal signs in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Asian Spine J 10:65–69. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.1.65
Dvorak J, Sutter M, Herdmann J (2003) Cervical myelopathy: clinical and neurophysiological evaluation. Eur Spine J 12:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0631-y
Hulcelle P (1990) Cervical myelopathy: MRI evaluation of cord compression. J Belge Radiol 73:15–9.
Yoon ST, Hashimoto RE, Raich A et al. (2013) Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S183–S!94. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb7c
Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K et al (2012) Prediction of lower limb functional recovery after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: Ffocusing on the 10-s step test. Eur Spine J 21:1389–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2241-z
Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A et al (2017) The modified Japanese orthopaedic association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 26:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4660-8
Castilhos RM, Blank D, Netto CBO et al (2012) Severity score system for progressive myelopathy: development and validation of a new clinical scale. Brazilian J Med Biol Res 45:565–572. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2012007500072
Ogawa Y, Yukawa Y, Morita D et al. (2013) 10-Second step test for quantitative evaluation of the severity of thoracic compressive myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:1405–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182987495
Ver MLP, Gum JL, Glassman SD et al (2020) Assessment of standing balance in normal versus cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients. North Am Spine Soc J 3:100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xnsj.2020.100023
Kokubun S, Sato T, Ishii Y et al. (1996) Cervical myelopathy in the Japanese. Clin Orthop Relat Res, pp 129–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199602000-00018
Hur H, Lee JK, Lee JH et al (2009) Thoracic myelopathy caused by ossification of the ligamentum flavum. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46:189–194. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2009.46.3.189
Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS et al (2013) Epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Focus 35:1–5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.4.FOCUS13122
Noh DK, Lee NG, You JH (2014) A novel spinal kinematic analysis using X-ray imaging and vicon motion analysis: a case study. Biomed Mater Eng 24:593–598. https://doi.org/10.3233/BME-130846
Gabuzda GM (1989) Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and thoracic myelopathy in a short-limbed dwarf, pp 1410–1412
Thotakura AK, Patibandla MR, Panigrahi MK et al (2012) Unilateral contiguous two level thoracic ossified hypertrophied facet joints with compressive myelopathy. J Neurosci Rural Pract 3:338–340. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.102616
Durlak JA (2009) How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol 34:917–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004
Hak T, van Rhee H, Suurmond R (2018) How to interpret results of meta-analysis. SSRN Electron J, pp 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3241367
Tikito I, Souissi N (2019) Meta-analysis of systematic literature review methods. Int J Mod Educ Comput Sci 11:17–25. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2019.02.03
Murphy RK, Sun P, Han RH et al (2018) Fractional anisotropy to quantify cervical spondylotic myelopathy severity. J Neurosurg Sci 62:406–412. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.16.03678-X
Zhang JS, Huan Y (2014) Multishot diffusion-weighted MR imaging features in acute trauma of spinal cord. Eur Radiol 24:685–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3051-3
Zaninovich OA, Avila MJ, Kay M et al (2019) The role of diffusion tensor imaging in the diagnosis, prognosis, and assessment of recovery and treatment of spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 46:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.1.FOCUS18591
Li DW, Liu WQ, Wang HM et al (2014) The Chinese language version of the abbreviated burn specific health scale: a validation study. Burns 40:1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.022
McPheeters ML, Kripalani S, Peterson NB et al. (2012) Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 3: quality improvement interventions to address health disparities). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep), pp 1–475.
Mellick LB (2001) Clinical presentation, quantitative sensory testing, a n d therapy of 2 patients with fourth thoracic syndrome, 403–410.
Yeh KT, Lee RP, Chen IH, et al. The Midterm Surgical Outcome of Modified Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8069354
Bohm PE, Fehlings MG, Kopjar B et al (2017) Psychometric properties of the 30-m walking test in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from two prospective multicenter cohort studies. Spine J 17:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.08.033
Ganau M, Holly LT, Mizuno J et al (2018) Future directions and new technologies for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 29:185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.006
Tetreault L, Palubiski LM, Kryshtalskyj M et al (2018) Significant predictors of outcome following surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Clin N Am 29:115-127.e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.020
Igarashi K, Shibuya S, Sano H et al (2011) Functional assessment of proximal arm muscles by target-reaching movements in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine J 11:270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.003
Enoki H, Tani T, Ishida K (2019) Foot tapping test as part of routine neurologic examination in degenerative compression myelopathies: A Significant Correlation between 10-sec Foot-tapping Speed and 30-m Walking Speed. Spine Surg Relat Res 3:207–213. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2018-0033
Mihara H, Kondo S, Murata A et al. (2010) A new performance test for cervical myelopathy: The triangle step test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:32–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b839b0
Tang CYK, Cheung JPY, Samartzis D et al (2017) Predictive factors for neurological deterioration after surgical decompression for thoracic ossified yellow ligament. Eur Spine J 26:2598–2605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5078-7
Acknowledgements
No funding has been applied for this study. This review protocol has registered in PROSPERO database.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Searching strategy of the systematic review
Appendix 1: Searching strategy of the systematic review
#1. Cervical AND Degenerati* |
#2. Myelopath* |
#3. #1 AND #2 |
#4. clinical OR physical OR neurological OR functional |
#5. assessment OR test* OR examination* OR evaluation* |
#6. #4 AND #5 |
#7. #3 AND #6 |
Search result | |
---|---|
AMED | 6 |
CINAHL complete | 117 |
Cochrane library | 40 |
EMBASE | 1172 |
MEDLINE | 413 |
PubMed | 894 |
Web of science | 469 |
Total | 3111 |
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Law, K.K.P., Lau, K.K.L., Shea, G.K.H. et al. Quantitative physical performance tests can effectively detect Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 31, 3347–3364 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07349-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07349-x