Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 598

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Clinical Examination and Patient Self-Report Measures for Cervical Radiculopathy

Wainner, Robert S., Fritz, Julie M., Irrgang, James J., Boninger, Michael L., Delitto, Anthony, Allison, Stephen·2003·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A blinded, prospective diagnostic test study was conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability and accuracy of individual clinical examination items and self-report instruments for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, and to identify and assess the accuracy of an optimum test-item cluster for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although cervical radiculopathy remains largely a clinical diagnosis, the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination items, individually or in combination, for cervical radiculopathy is largely unknown. METHODS: Patients with suspected cervical radiculopathy or carpal tunnel syndrome received standardized electrophysiologic examination of the symptomatic upper quarter followed by a standardized clinical examination by physical therapist examiners blinded to diagnosis. Diagnostic properties were assessed using a neural impairment reference criterion standard. RESULTS: The study involved 82 patients. More than two thirds of 34 clinical examination items had reliability coefficients rated at least fair or better, and 13 items had likelihood ratio point estimates above 2 or below 0.50. A single diagnostic test item cluster of four variables was identified and produced a positive likelihood ratio point estimate of 30.3. The 95% confidence intervals for all likelihood ratio point estimates in this study were wide. CONCLUSIONS: Many items of the clinical examination were found to be reliable and to have acceptable diagnostic properties, but the test item cluster identified was more useful for indicating cervical radiculopathy than any single test item. Upper limb tension Test A was the most useful test for ruling out cervical radiculopathy. Further investigation is required both to validate the test item cluster and to improve point estimate precision.

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 · 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00014

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 598

Metadata

Authors
Wainner, R. S., Fritz, J. M., Irrgang, J. J., Boninger, M. L., Delitto, A., & Allison, S.
Venue
Spine
Published
2003-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
52-62
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049122063
Cited by
598
References
3
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Reliability and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Clinical Examination and Patient Self-Report Measures for Cervical Radiculopathy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00014
The paper
Wainner, R. S., Fritz, J. M., Irrgang, J. J., Boninger, M. L., Delitto, A., & Allison, S. (2003). Reliability and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Clinical Examination and Patient Self-Report Measures for Cervical Radiculopathy. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00014

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.