The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Test of Lasègue: Systematic Review of the Accuracy in Diagnosing Herniated Discs
Open accessAbstract
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature including statistical meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate published methods of the test of Lasègue or straight leg raising test and the cross straight leg raising test by using a recently developed criteria list and to summarize and explore reasons for variation in diagnostic accuracy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little evidence exists on the diagnostic accuracy of the widely used straight leg raising test and the cross straight leg raising test in diagnosing herniated discs in patients with low back pain. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE searches up to 1997 showed 17 diagnostic publications evaluating the straight leg raising test with surgery as reference standard. Quality of methods was assessed with a specific checklist. Eleven studies were selected for statistical pooling. Sources of variation and heterogeneity were studied by meta-regression of the diagnostic odds ratio. RESULTS: All studies were surgical case-series at nonprimary care level. Verification-bias was obvious in one study. Pooled sensitivity for straight leg raising test was 0. 91 (95% CI 0.82-0.94), pooled specificity 0.26 (95% CI 0.16-0.38). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 3.74 (95% CI 1.2-11.4). Discriminative power was lower in recent studies, in studies with only inclusion of primary hernias, and with blind assessment of both the index-test (straight leg raising test) and the reference (surgery). For the cross straight leg raising test pooled sensitivity was 0.29 (95% CI 0.24-0.34), pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90), and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio 4.39 (95% CI 0.74-25.9). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of the straight leg raising test is limited by its low specificity. Discriminative power decreased with a more valid design, a more homogenous case-mix, and year of publication. Although the studies may reflect everyday clinical practice, they do not enable a valid evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of both tests. Diagnostic research should evaluate the validity of the complete diagnostic process and study the evidence of the added value of the different tests used. [Key words: sensitivity, specificity, diagnosis, meta-analysis, test of Lasègue, straight leg raising test]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017
Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary
Colditz, G. A., Burdick, E., & Mosteller, F. (1995) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644 · Cited by 245
Cited by
Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J. T., Shekelle, P., Owens, D. K., & for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel* (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006 · Cited by 2,718
Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain
Airaksinen, O., Brox, J. I., Cedraschi, C., Hildebrandt, J., Klaber-Moffett, J., Kovacs, F., Mannion, A. F., Reis, S., Staal, J. B., Ursin, H., et al. (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1 · Cited by 2,594
Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests
Laslett, M., Aprill, C. N., McDonald, B., & Young, S. B. (2005) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2005.01.003 · Cited by 567
Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence
Leeflang, M. M. G., Rutjes, A. W. S., Reitsma, J. B., Hooft, L., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2013) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.121286 · Cited by 530
Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain
van der Windt, D. A., Simons, E., Riphagen, I. I., Ammendolia, C., Verhagen, A. P., Laslett, M., Devillé, W., Deyo, R. A., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C., et al. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007431.pub2 · Cited by 334
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Devillé, W. L. J. M., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Dzaferagić, A., Bezemer, P. D., & Bouter, L. M.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1140-1147
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2035851583
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Test of Lasègue: Systematic Review of the Accuracy in Diagnosing Herniated Discs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200005010-00016
- The paper
- Devillé, W. L. J. M., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Dzaferagić, A., Bezemer, P. D., & Bouter, L. M. (2000). The Test of Lasègue: Systematic Review of the Accuracy in Diagnosing Herniated Discs. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200005010-00016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.