Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

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 access
Devillé, Walter L. J. M., van der Windt, Daniëlle A. W. M., Dzaferagić, Aida, Bezemer, P. D., Bouter, Lex M.·2000·Spine

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00016

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 264

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.