PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7366894

Roll over test.

N S Kassar·J Aldridge·B Quirk
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Eighty-eight primigravidas underwent a roll over test performed according to the method suggested by Gant. A single individual performed the tests, and the results were withheld from the physician taking care of the patient. After delivery, 14 cases were excluded for various reasons, and, of the remaining 74 patients, 27 had negative results. Of these, 19 (70.4%) results were true negative and 8 (29.6%) were false negative. Forty-seven patients had a positive roll over test, of whom 35 (74.5%) did not develop hypertension in pregnancy and 12 (25.5%) did. The authors' results did not confirm the reliable predictive ability of the roll over test as reported by Gant and other investigators.

Explore related subjects

False Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansHypertensionMethodsPosturePregnancyPregnancy Complications, CardiovascularJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N S Kassar, J Aldridge, B Quirk. 1980. Roll over test.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7366894/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1995

Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion. Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation.

STUDY DESIGN: In a retrospective study, the incidence of false positive and false negative interpretation of x-rays for solid spinal arthrodesis with spinal instrumentation was evaluated in 75 patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the interpretation of x-rays for diagnosing solid spinal arthrodesis in patients with spinal instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: This retrospective study compared spinal fusion, as determined by direct observation and radiographic evaluation, in 75 patients with instrumented lumbar fusions using multiple devices. The fusions included posterolateral fusions or posterolateral with interbody fusions. Autograft, allograft, and a combination of these also were used. METHODS: A single blinded examiner reviewed all x-rays immediately before the spinal hardware was removed and the fusion mass was explored by the surgeon. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between x-rays and the observations at the time of surgery in only 68% of the patients. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the accuracy of x-ray interpretation for spinal arthrodesis is only 68%. The L4-L5 level was the most difficult level to fuse and the most difficult to interpret using x-rays. Patients with persistent back pain, when nonmechanical causes have been ruled out, should be considered for surgical exploration of the fusion mass even if x-rays appear to indicate a solid fusion.

False Negative Reactions↗