PainSci summary of Myburgh 2008?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆?4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
This 2008 review of the reliability of trigger point diagnosis resoundingly concluded that the question simply hasn’t been properly studied. The authors urge clinicians and scientists to “move toward simpler, global assessments of patient status.” Translation: “Nothing to see here, move along!”
This is essentially the same conclusion as a 2009 review by Lucas et al.
~ Paul Ingraham
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reproducibility of manual palpation in identifying trigger points based on a systematic review of available literature.
DATA SOURCES: Medline (1965-2007), CINHAL (1982-2007), ISI Web of Science (1945-2007), and MANTIS (1966-2007) databases and reference lists of articles.
STUDY SELECTION: Reproducibility studies relating to identification and diagnosis of trigger points through palpation. Acceptable studies were required to specifically consider either inter- or intrarater reliability of trigger point identification through manual palpation and include kappa statistics as part of their statistical assessment.
DATA EXTRACTION: Three independent reviewers considered the studies for inclusion and rated their methodologic quality based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines for the reporting of diagnostic studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies were initially included; however, 5 were subsequently excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only 2 studies were judged to be of high quality, and the level of evidence criteria suggested that, at best, moderate evidence could be found from which to make pronouncements on the literature. Only local tenderness of the trapezius (kappa range, .15-.62) and pain referral of the gluteus medius (kappa range, .298-.487) and quadratus lumborum (kappa range, .36-.501) were found to be reproducible.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic quality of the majority of studies for the purpose of establishing trigger point reproducibility is generally poor. More high-quality studies are needed to comment on this procedure. Clinicians and scientists are urged to move toward simpler, global assessments of patient status.
- “Reliability of physical examination for diagnosis of myofascial trigger points: a systematic review of the literature,” an article in Clinical Journal of Pain, 2009.
- “Interrater Agreement of Manual Palpation for Identification of Myofascial Trigger Points: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” an article in The Clinical Journal of Pain, 2017.
- “Clinical precision of myofascial trigger point location in the trapezius muscle,” an article in Pain, 2001.
- “Interrater reliability in myofascial trigger point examination,” an article in Pain, 1997.
- “Travell, Simons and Cargo Cult Science,” a webpage on FMperplex.com.
- “The fibromyalgia and myofascial pain syndromes: a preliminary study of tender points and trigger points in persons with fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome and no disease,” an article in Journal of Rheumatology, 1992.
- “Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic,” an article in Biochem Med (Zagreb), 2012.
- “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” an article in Biometrics, 1977.
These four articles on PainScience.com cite Myburgh 2008 as a source:
- PS Trigger Points & Myofascial Pain Syndrome — A guide to the unfinished science of muscle pain, with reviews of every theory and self-treatment and therapy option
- PS Is Diagnosis for Pain Problems Reliable? — Reliability science shows that health professionals can’t agree on many popular theories about why you’re in pain
- PS Trigger Point Doubts — Do muscle knots exist? Exploring controversies about the existence and nature of so-called “trigger points” and myofascial pain syndrome
- PS Palpatory Pareidolia & Diagnosis by Touch — Tactile illusions, wishful thinking, and the belief in advanced diagnostic palpation skills in massage and other touchy health care
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.
- How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Soligard 2016 Br J Sports Med.
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial. Chaibi 2016 Eur J Neurol.