Background Straight Leg Raise (SLR) assessment represents a foundational neurodynamic maneuver employed for diagnosing radicular pain; however, its reliability and validity vary across populations and clinical settings. Despite frequent clinical use, inconsistencies remain in diagnostic accuracy and standardized testing methods. Objective This scoping review endeavored to comprehensively synthesize the Straight Leg Raise’s reliability and accuracy in individuals with radicular pain, examining psychometric properties including sensitivity, specificity, and inter-rater reliability across diverse clinical populations. Methods A comprehensive search of Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and PubMed (2015–2025) was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, using the PCC framework, which is Population (adults with radicular pain), Concept (reliability and validity of SLR), and Context (clinical and diagnostic settings). Studies assessing SLR reliability or validity in individuals with radicular pain were included. Data on sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Results A total of 1247 studies screened, eight investigations fulfilled inclusion requirements after full-text appraisal, with synthesis of the evidence demonstrating that the SLR test has a low specificity (25–81%) but a high sensitivity (77–97%) for identifying lumbar nerve root involvement. Inter-rater reliability was enhanced by standardized procedures with structural differentiation (kappa up to 0.87). In older persons (>60 years, 33%), sensitivity declined. SLR’s negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were enhanced when combined with tests such as Bragard or slump. Conclusion When combined with thorough neurodynamic evaluations rather than utilised in isolation, the SLR test is a useful screening tool for radicular pain. In order to improve diagnosis accuracy across a range of clinical groups, future research should focus on standardising testing procedures, validating test combinations, and creating age-specific modifications. Open Science Framework registries (OSF) with a registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N4GES .
Purpose Respiratory muscle strength evaluation is one of the key predictors for respiratory health in children. Commonly used manometers are widely available for assessing the respiratory muscle strength which are lacking in digital storage. This study mainly focusses on measurement of maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) in children through electronic respirometer to find the reliability and validity. Methods A total of 100 healthy children aged 5–16 years were recruited using convenient sampling method. Maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressure were assessed through electronic respirometer. Two trained evaluators assessed the MIP and MEP on separate days and each participant were taken with three trails for each test. The inter- and intra-rater reliability were found out for obtaining content validity index (CVI). Pearson correlation was taken to find out the validity of this instrument. Result The reliability of both MIP and MEP shown an excellent inter-rater reliability (Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.98) and intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.94). The electronic respirometer measurement shown stronger correlation with standard values (r = 0.88 and r = 0.89 for MEP). Conclusion It has been shown that electronic respirometer is a valid and reliable tool for measurement of inspiratory muscle strength and expiratory muscle strength in healthy children. In clinical and research setting, it is suitable and easy to use the electronic respirometer than the traditional devices.
Introduction This scoping review aimed to identify and chart rehabilitation methods for severe upper limb motor impairments in patients with chronic stroke, incorporating both non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide a broader perspective. Methods A search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science. Data were managed using the Rayyan software. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Inclusion criteria included severe upper limb motor impairment, chronic stroke, RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and crossover studies. Results From 802 extracted articles, 16 met the inclusion criteria: 87.5% were RCTs, 12.5% were crossover trials, whereas 0% were quasi-RCTs. Major interventions included robot-assisted training (25%), noninvasive brain stimulation (25%), and electrical stimulation (31.3%). Although motor function improvements were frequently reported, few studies showed statistically significant differences compared with control groups. Discussion This review systematically mapped the range of study designs and rehabilitation methods identified in the literature, providing a structured overview of current evidence for severe upper limb motor impairments in patients with chronic stroke.
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been well reported in populations with chronic pain in the literature. However, in neuropathic pain (NP), results remain contrasting, with previous studies showing small effect sizes and some factors that may influence the efficacy of tDCS. To evaluate the effects of tDCS on pain intensity, disability, and psychological aspects in individuals with chronic NP, and to determine the predictive effect of characteristics of individuals, study design, and intervention parameters. Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. A literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, in July 2025. Controlled clinical trials involving individuals with chronic NP treated with tDCS were included. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Meta-regression was performed to investigate potential moderators of the treatment effect. Eighteen studies were included with a pooled sample of 482 individuals. Moderate level of evidence indicated that tDCS was superior to sham for improving pain (SMD = −0.47; 95% CI: −0.75; −0.19), and low level of evidence indicated that tDCS was not superior to sham in improving disability, anxiety, and depression. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated that duration of pain is negatively correlated with effect size. In addition, stimulation target, randomization, and study design significantly contributed to variability. Moderate level of evidence indicated that tDCS may have beneficial effects on pain intensity. Symptom duration, tDCS application site, and methodological quality are moderators of tDCS effects. Future studies are required to enhance the quality of evidence.
