A T M van de Water, D R Benjamin
Journal: Manual therapy 2017;21():41-53
PMID: 26474542
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic literature review.
BACKGROUND
Diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle (DRAM) has been linked with low back pain, abdominal and pelvic dysfunction. Measurement is used to either screen or to monitor DRAM width. Determining which methods are suitable for screening and monitoring DRAM is of clinical value.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the best methods to screen for DRAM presence and monitor DRAM width.
METHODS
AMED, Embase, Medline, PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched for measurement property studies of DRAM measurement methods. Population characteristics, measurement methods/procedures and measurement information were extracted from included studies. Quality of all studies was evaluated using 'quality rating criteria'. When possible, reliability generalisation was conducted to provide combined reliability estimations.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies evaluated measurement properties of the 'finger width'-method, tape measure, calipers, ultrasound, CT and MRI. Ultrasound was most evaluated. Methodological quality of these studies varied widely. Pearson's correlations of r = 0.66-0.79 were found between calipers and ultrasound measurements. Calipers and ultrasound had Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) of 0.78-0.97 for test-retest, inter- and intra-rater reliability. The 'finger width'-method had weighted Kappa's of 0.73-0.77 for test-retest reliability, but moderate agreement (63%; weighted Kappa = 0.53) between raters. Comparing calipers and ultrasound, low measurement error was found (above the umbilicus), and the methods had good agreement (83%; weighted Kappa = 0.66) for discriminative purposes.
CONCLUSIONS
The available information support ultrasound and calipers as adequate methods to assess DRAM. For other methods limited measurement information of low to moderate quality is available and further evaluation of their measurement properties is required.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Medical:
Other Literature Sources:
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.