◔
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Difference between revisions
From WikiMSK
(Created page with "{{stub}} ==History== The cluster of Cook are features on history to determine the probability of lumbar spinal stenosis.{{#pmid:21077266|cook}} The features on history are 1)...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
The cluster of Cook are features on history to determine the probability of lumbar spinal stenosis.{{#pmid:21077266|cook}} The features on history are 1) bilateral symptoms; 2) leg pain more than back pain; 3) pain during walking/standing; 4) pain relief upon sitting; and 5) age>48 years. Having no findings has a sensitivity of 96%, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.19. Having four of five findings has a sensitivity of 6%, and specificity of 98%, with a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6. Three of five findings had a higher sensitivity, but a lower LR+ of 2.5. | The cluster of Cook are features on history to determine the probability of lumbar spinal stenosis.{{#pmid:21077266|cook}} The features on history are 1) bilateral symptoms; 2) leg pain more than back pain; 3) pain during walking/standing; 4) pain relief upon sitting; and 5) age>48 years. Having no findings has a sensitivity of 96%, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.19. Having four of five findings has a sensitivity of 6%, and specificity of 98%, with a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6. Three of five findings had a higher sensitivity, but a lower LR+ of 2.5. | ||
==References== | |||
[[Category:Lumbar Spine]] | [[Category:Lumbar Spine]] | ||
[[Category:Stubs]] | |||
Revision as of 10:33, 30 July 2020
This article is a stub.
History
The cluster of Cook are features on history to determine the probability of lumbar spinal stenosis.[1] The features on history are 1) bilateral symptoms; 2) leg pain more than back pain; 3) pain during walking/standing; 4) pain relief upon sitting; and 5) age>48 years. Having no findings has a sensitivity of 96%, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.19. Having four of five findings has a sensitivity of 6%, and specificity of 98%, with a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6. Three of five findings had a higher sensitivity, but a lower LR+ of 2.5.
