PhysioHub

Neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy: a scoping review

The short answer

How accurate is the bedside neurological examination for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy?

The bedside neurological examination has high specificity but low sensitivity for cervical radiculopathy, meaning a positive finding moderately increases the probability of the diagnosis but a negative finding does not rule it out. The evidence base is small, heterogeneous, and lacking a gold-standard reference test, so firm recommendations cannot yet be made.

DescriptiveRead paper
Systematic review6 TrialsLimited evidence

Key points

  1. Only 6 cross-sectional studies met inclusion criteria, reflecting a major gap in the literature
  2. All BNE components (reflexes, sensation, muscle strength) showed low sensitivity but generally high specificity compared to EMG/NCS or MRI
  3. Reduced tendon reflexes were the most specific component; sensory testing was least specific
  4. Combining BNE components increased specificity (up to 99%) but further reduced sensitivity
  5. BNE procedures were poorly and inconsistently reported across studies, limiting comparability

How it was conducted

Design
Scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley framework and JBI methodology, reported using PRISMA-ScR
Search
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, DiTA from inception to January 23, 2024; plus grey literature and citation tracking
Included studies
6 cross-sectional studies, all in English
Population
Patients with confirmed or clinically suspected cervical radiculopathy
Index test
Bedside neurological examination components: tendon reflexes, somatosensation (light touch, pin prick), and muscle strength testing
Reference standards
Needle EMG and nerve conduction studies (4 studies, 67%) or MRI (2 studies, 33%)

What they found

  • Tendon reflex testing vs. EMG/NCS: sensitivity 21-22% (95% CI 11-27%; -LR 0.80-0.84), specificity 94-97% (95% CI 92-99; +LR 3.5-7.33)
  • Tendon reflex testing vs. MRI: sensitivity 28-67% (95% CI 18-40% to 43-85%), specificity 81% (95% CI 69-89%; +LR 1.38)
  • Pin prick sensation vs. EMG/NCS: sensitivity 25-38% (-LR 0.84-1.35), specificity 46-89% (95% CI 0.83-0.95%; +LR 0.7-2.27)
  • Light touch vs. MRI: sensitivity 42-52% (95% CI 30-54% to 30-74%); combined sensory (light touch + pin prick) sensitivity 67% (95% CI 43-85%); specificity 72% (95% CI 59-82%; +LR 1.42-1.56)
  • Muscle strength testing vs. EMG/NCS: sensitivity 54-73% (95% CI 38-65% to NR; -LR 0.44-0.49), specificity 61-93% (95% CI 85-97%; +LR 1.87-7.71)
  • Muscle strength testing vs. MRI: sensitivity 30-81% (95% CI 20-43% to 58-95%), specificity 72% (95% CI 60-82%; +LR 1.05)
  • Combination of tendon reflex deficit + sensory loss vs. EMG/NCS: specificity 99% (95% CI 94-100%; +LR 14-22), sensitivity 9-21%
  • Full BNE (all 3 components) vs. EMG/NCS: sensitivity 7-83% (95% CI NR to 52-98%; -LR 0.61-0.95), specificity 28-99% (95% CI 13-47% to 95-100%; +LR 1.15-14)
  • Full BNE vs. MRI: sensitivity 91% (95% CI 70-99%)
  • No studies reported on muscle atrophy inspection despite it being a BNE component

Limitations

  • No gold standard reference test for cervical radiculopathy exists; EMG/NCS and MRI each have known limitations including inability to assess small nerve fibers (EMG) and detection of structural rather than functional nerve compromise (MRI)
  • BNE procedures were poorly described in 50% of studies and key muscles, reflexes, and sensory tests were non-consistent across studies
  • Only 6 studies were identified, with small sample sizes and significant heterogeneity preventing meta-analysis or firm conclusions
  • Study participants were recruited with heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, some using arm pain as the CR criterion rather than the IASP definition of loss of nerve function

Why it matters

For patients
If your clinician finds abnormal reflexes, sensation, or muscle strength in a dermatomal pattern, a positive result meaningfully raises the likelihood of a pinched nerve in your neck, but a normal examination does not rule it out.
For clinicians
BNE components have high specificity for cervical radiculopathy (useful for confirming the diagnosis) but low sensitivity (a normal BNE cannot exclude CR); combining components further raises specificity but should be interpreted alongside the full clinical picture and valid reference tests.
For readers
This scoping review is the first to systematically map BNE accuracy for cervical radiculopathy and identifies critical gaps: standardized procedures, accepted diagnostic criteria, and a valid reference standard are all needed before firm clinical recommendations can be issued.

Source

doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08560-9

Read the original paper
Clinically assessing this area? See the neck & cervical spine special tests.

More Neck & Cervical Spine studies