Open AccessRater agreement reliability of the dial test in the ACL‐deficient knee
Author(s) -
Slichter Malou E.,
Wolterbeek Nienke,
Auw Yang K. Gie,
Zijl Jacco A. C.,
Piscaer Tom M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of experimental orthopaedics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 18
ISSN - 2197-1153
DOI - 10.1186/s40634-018-0131-y
Subject(s) - medicine , test (biology) , anterior cruciate ligament , dial , reliability (semiconductor) , orthopedic surgery , pivot shift test , orthodontics , knee joint , physical therapy , surgery , anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction , engineering , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , electrical engineering , biology
Background Posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the knee can easily be missed, because attention is paid to injury of the cruciate ligaments. If left untreated this clinical instability may persist after reconstruction of the cruciate ligaments and may put the graft at risk of failure. Even though the dial test is widely used to diagnose PLRI, no validity and reliability studies of the manual dial test are yet performed in patients. This study focuses on the reliability of the manual dial test by determining the rater agreement. Methods Two independent examiners performed the dial test in knees of 52 patients after knee distorsion with a suspicion on ACL rupture. The dial test was performed in prone position in 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion of the knees. ≥10° side‐to‐side difference was considered a positive dial test. For quantification of the amount of rotation in degrees, a measuring device was used with a standardized 6 Nm force, using a digital torque adapter on a booth. The intra‐rater, inter‐rater and rater‐device agreement were determined by calculating kappa (κ) for the dial test. Results A positive dial test was found in 21.2% and 18.0% of the patients as assessed by a blinded examiner and orthopaedic surgeon respectively. Fair inter‐rater agreement was found in 30° of flexion, κ F = 0.29 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.56), p = 0.044 and 90° of flexion, κ F = 0.38 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.66), p = 0.007. Almost perfect rater‐device agreement was found in 30° of flexion, κ C = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.52 to 1.15), p < 0.001. Moderate rater‐device agreement was found in 30° and 90° combined, κ C = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.86), p = 0.008. No significant intra‐rater agreement was found. Conclusions Rater agreement reliability of the manual dial test is questionable. It has a fair inter‐rater agreement in 30° and 90° of flexion.