ABSTRACT
Introduction Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common cause of pain in the neck and arm region, with a considerable impact on a person’s physical functioning, mental health, and social participation. The current knowledge of CR is mainly based on empirical concepts and early studies. Although action potential conduction slowing or block of a spinal nerve or its roots (i.e., loss of sensory and/or motor function) is a core sign of CR, among guidelines CR is still commonly defined by pain (i.e., gain of function) radiating into the arm. There is no consensus about the gold-standard for the diagnostic procedures for CR but it has been suggested that clinicians should assess CR by subjective and physical examination including a neurological examination, neural mechanosensitive testing and provocative manoeuvres. Among the several clinical tests routinely used to identify loss of function, the neurological examination historically played a role in the differential diagnosis and in the prognostic profile of radiculopathy. However, there is a paucity of studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of the neurological examination for CR. Thus, the assessment of CR remains a clinical challenge among primary care clinicians. This often leads to an increased risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, potentially contributing to delayed recovery and poor health outcomes. Therefore, according to the population, concept, context (PCC) strategy, our scoping review aims to investigate the evidence in regard to diagnostic accuracy (C) of the neurological examination for CR (P) and raise awareness among clinicians on how to appropriately perform this testing.
Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer’s Manual on scoping reviews. The aim of this scoping review is to explore what is already known about the neurological examination and its diagnostic value for CR.
Ethics and dissemination This scoping review will not require ethical approval since it will synthesize information from publicly available studies. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences in the field and disseminated through working groups, conferences, webinars, social media.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Our review will identify knowledge gaps to inform future research about the neurological examination for CR. Diagnostic values will be reported when available.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scoping review to provide a comprehensive overview on the neurological examination for CR.
The results will add meaningful information for clinicians to inform assessment of CR. It will also direct future research.
A robust clinical recommendation might be limited due to the lack of available literature
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. None of the authors received any funding for this study. A.B. Schmid is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship (222101/Z/20/Z) and the Medical Research Foundation (Emerging Leaders Prize in Pain Research).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
