MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000180608.76190.10

Медицинская библиотека · Neurology · 2005

Should the Babinski sign be part of the routine neurologic examination?

Miller Timothy M, Johnston S Claiborne

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

The Babinski sign is a well-known sign of upper motor neuron dysfunction that is widely considered an essential element of a complete neurologic examination. Little is known about reliability and validity of this sign. A less well-known sign of upper motor neuron dysfunction, decreased speed of foot tapping, also has not been carefully evaluated. Scientific evaluation of findings of the physical examination is crucial in directing busy clinicians.

METHODS

Ten physicians (five neurologists and five non-specialists) examined each foot of 10 subjects, 8 of whom had known unilateral upper motor neuron weakness, 1 had bilateral leg weakness secondary to ALS, and 1 had no known neurologic deficits. Our main outcome measures were inter-rater reliability (kappa values) and accuracy (agreement with known upper motor neuron weakness).

RESULTS

The reliability of the Babinski sign was fair (kappa 0.30) and was substantial for foot tapping (kappa 0.73). Agreement with known weakness was 56% for Babinski sign and 85% for foot tapping. Reliability and accuracy for both tests were similar for neurologists and non-specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

The interobserver reliability and validity of the Babinski sign for identifying upper motor neuron weakness are limited. Slowness of foot tapping may be a more useful sign.

Для цитирования: Miller Timothy M, Johnston S Claiborne. Should the Babinski sign be part of the routine neurologic examination?. Neurology. 2005. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000180608.76190.10.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.