PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice.

  • Martin Alfuth,
  • Patrick Fichter,
  • Axel Knicker

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261457
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 12
p. e0261457

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundA variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments and imaging diagnostics for the determination of LLD.Materials and methodsThe review was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases Medline (PubMed) and Index to Chiropractic Literature were systematically searched. Studies regarding clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics for the diagnosis of LLD, which reported the clinimetric properties for assessment of LLD, were included and screened for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool for validity studies and the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) tool for reliability studies.ResultsThirty-seven articles on clinical assessments and 15 studies on imaging diagnostics met the eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies on the validity of clinical assessments and six studies on the validity of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability for all domains. One study on the reliability of clinical assessments and one study on the reliability of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias. Main limitations were, that an analysis of sensitivity and specificity was only performed in a few studies and that a valid reference standard was lacking in numerous studies on clinical assessments.ConclusionsFor the clinical assessment of LLD, the block test appears to be the most useful method. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiography seems to be the most valid and reliable method and may be used as global reference standard to measure the anatomic LLD when comparing clinical methods and imaging diagnostics.