The study of the osteopathic diagnostics results′ coincidence frequency

Introduction. The quality of diagnostics in various branches of medicine including the use of complex and expensive equipment leaves much to be desired. In any case, the doctor evaluates the patient′s examination results and makes a diagnosis, which may be wrong. In manual medicine the main tool is the hands of the doctor and it makes the diagnostic process even more subjective. There are few studies confi rming the reliability of manual diagnostic methods; the reproducibility estimates in the most cases do not satisfy the evidencebased medicinerequirements, and in some cases are simply absent. One of the indicators characterizing the diagnostics quality is the indicator of the diagnoses matches or discrepancies frequency.

The goal of research — to determine the coincidence frequency of the osteopathic diagnostics results (osteopathic conclusions) formulated by the osteopathic doctors working as teachers of one osteopathic school.

Materials and methods. The cross-blind study involved 6 osteopaths-teachers of the Institute Osteopathy of Saint-Petersburg. Their experience as an osteopathic doctor was from 3 to 14 years (median 7.5 years). The osteopaths were randomly divided into two «triples». Each triple worked on the same day on the same contingent of subjects (students of the Osteopathy Institute). A total of 75 people aged 22 to 58 years (median 35 years) were examined, including 36 women and 39 men. Each person was examined by three osteopaths with completinga standard osteopathic conclusion. Osteopaths carried out only osteopathic diagnosis without taking a history and analysis of the additional examinations results. All subjects fi lled out an anamnestic questionnaire in which they noted the regions where there were operations or injuries, or the problem was identifi ed by objective examination methods (there was a diagnosis). Statistical processing of the results was performed using nonparametric statistics by a specialist who did not know who specifi cally performed the osteopathic diagnosis.

Results. The following patterns were revealed after comparing the osteopathic conclusions made by three osteopathic doctors examining one group of patients. For 12 regions of the body (including variants of somatic (soma) and visceral (viscera) components), 8 regions showed agreement on the presence or absence of biomechanical somatic dysfunctions (SD) by the results of groups comparing according to the Friedman criterion p>0,05. In the head and chest (soma) regions in both triplets there was the greatest coincidence of diagnoses, and in the lower back (viscera) region — the least, perhaps the latter region is the most diffi cult for osteopathic examination. Regional neurodynamic SD was detected rarely, from 1 to 3 per group, and so there was almost complete negative consent among osteopathic doctors, perhaps these SD are very rare. Global SD either were not detectedby the osteopaths, or the detected global SD did not match in most cases, perhaps the global SD identifi cationis the most diffi cult part of the osteopathic examination. For the most cases (84 % in the fi rst triple and 60 % in the second triples), 2 osteopaths out of 3 revealed the same dominant SD, and the original diagnoses were from 28,9 % to 53,3 %. In 73 % of the subjects the localization of the dominant SD coincided with the localization of the problems indicated in the questionnaire (a history of trauma or surgery; a diagnosis confi rmed by objective examination methods). These results are very important for confi rming the osteopathic diagnosisobjectivity, since SD is likely to form at the site of an injury or operation (i. e. acute infl ammation).

Conclusion. The obtained results of osteopathic diagnostics can be regarded as quite good and acceptable, especially in comparison with the so-called objective methods (ultrasound, MRI, etc.). 

1. Bakhtadze M. A., Svyatkina O. A., Belyakov V. V. The evaluation of the convergence of methods (method/observer agreement): Cohen′s kappacriterion. Manual Ther. 2008; 30 (2): 49–59 (in russ.).

2. Magomedova A. Z., Sakhno V. I. Frequency of coincidences of diagnoses at the stages of hospitalization of urgently hospitalized patients of therapeutic profile. Disaster med. 2006; 1 (23): 41–43 (in russ.).

3. Ignatenko I. V. Discrepancy of doctors′ diagnoses at the stages of planned hospitalization of gynecological patients. Bull. I. I. Mechnikov St. Petersburg Med. Acad. 2006; 7 (3): 26–29 (in russ.).

4. Abakarova G. G. The discrepancy rate in diagnosis of the patients with digestive system pathology at admission. Bashkortostan Med. J. 2008; 3 (2): 12–14 (in russ.).

5. Zhuraeva H. I., Alimova S. A. Application of the polling method in early diagnosis of stenocardia as the screening test at preventive inspections of the population. Biol. integrative med. 2017; (6): 14–22 (in russ.).

6. Khalitov F. Ya., Anisimov A. Yu. Diagnostic status of acute poisoning by ambulance doctors. Practical med. 2017; 111 (10): 89–92 (in russ.).

7. Vorobiev N. V., Kibanov P. V. Clinical analysis of frequency and structure of diagnosis distribution «acute appendicite» at the dosphital and hospitalstages. Probl. modern sci. education. 2017; 100 (18): 82–84 (in russ.).

8. Raznitsyin A. V. Qualitative aspect of the medical checkup of applicants having entered Grodno State Medical University. J. Grodno State Med. University. 2006; 15 (3): 98–99 (in russ.).

9. Tarasova S. V., Amelin A. V., Skoromets А. А. Prevalence and revelation of primary and symptomatic forms of chronic daily headache. Kazan med. J. 2008; 89 (4): 427–431 (in russ.).

10. Korostyshevskaya A. M., Savelov A. A. Role of magneticresonance imaging of fetus in diagnostics of congenital defects. Bull. Siber. Med. 2012; 11 (5): 128–131 (in russ.). https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2012-5-128-131

11. Korobtsov A. V., Gulyaev S. A., Moiseenko V. I., Lantuh A. V., Banashkevich V. E., Gulyaeva S. E. Diagnostics of pathologic cerebral hemodynamics at patients within tracranial vascular malformations. Pacifi c Med. J. 2008; (4): 65–67 (in russ.).

12. Herzog R., Elgort D. R., Flanders A. E., Moley P. J. Variability in diagnostic error rates of 10 MRI centers performing lumbar spine MRI examinations on the same patient within a 3-week period. Spine J. 2017; 17 (4): 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.009

13. Pool J. J., Hoving J. L., De Vet H. C., Van Mameren H., Bouter L. M. The inter-examiner reproducibility of physical examination of the cervical spine. JMPT. 2004; 27 (2): 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.12.002

14. Smedmark V., Wallin M., Arvidson I. Inter-examiner reliability in assessing passive intervertebral motion of the cervical spine. Manual Ther. 2000; 5 (2): 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1054/math.2000.0234

15. Van Truffle E., Anderegg Q., Bossuyt P. M., Lucas C. Inter-examiner reliability of passive assessment of intervertebral motion in the cervical and lumbar spine: A systematic review. Manual Ther. 2005; 10 (4): 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2005.04.008

16. Hon G. A., Snider K. T., Johnson J. C. Variations in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Somatic Dysfunction Between 4 Osteopathic Residency Programs. J. Amer. Osteopath. Ass. 2015; 115 (5): 294–303. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2015.060

17. Mokhov D. E., Belash V. O. Methodology of clinical osteopathic examination: Studyguide. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SZGMU im. I. I. Mechnikova; 2019; 80 p. (in russ.).

18. Potekhina Yu. P., Mokhov D. E., Tregubova E. S. Etiology and pathogenesis of somatic dysfunctions. Clin. pathophysiol. 2017; 23 (4): 16–26 (in russ.). https://doi.org/10.32885/2220-0975-2016-3-4-91-104