Dataset Information

Reporting on the level of validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring Katakori severity: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:Katakori is a Japanese term for non-specific symptoms including discomfort or dull pain caused by muscle stiffness around the neck through the shoulders and is one of the most frequently reported symptoms in Japan. However, there has been no standardized patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate Katakori severity. This study aimed to investigate the reporting level on validity and reliability of patient-reported outcome measures of Katakori severity. Method:A systematic search in ICHUSHI, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed was undertaken from inception to April 2017 without language limitations. Two authors independently undertook screening by inspecting the title and abstract. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) participants with Katakori symptoms, (2) reporting reliability or validity of questionnaire evaluating Katakori severity and (3) published journal articles. Studies that either of the authors retained through the screening process were inspected with full text by the two authors independently to examine eligibility of the study. Any disagreement on eligibility after full-text inspection was resolved by discussion between them. Methodological quality was rated with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Subsequently, the evidence level of each measurement property was assessed for each questionnaire. The two authors extracted data independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion between them. Results:Five questionnaires were identified in five studies. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and Scale for Measuring Felt Shoulder Stiffness had the highest level of methodological quality. However, excellent measurement properties were found in only two out of nine criteria. Furthermore, in particular, content validity was not investigated in any measure. Conclusion:There is preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and Scale for Measuring Felt Shoulder Stiffness; however, much further research is required. Identifying or developing a patient-reported outcome measure with content validity would be a future research agenda.

SUBMITTER: Aoki K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6421599 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting on the level of validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring Katakori severity: A systematic review.

Aoki Kaori K Hall Toby T Takasaki Hiroshi H

SAGE open medicine 20190315

<h4>Objectives</h4>Katakori is a Japanese term for non-specific symptoms including discomfort or dull pain caused by muscle stiffness around the neck through the shoulders and is one of the most frequently reported symptoms in Japan. However, there has been no standardized patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate Katakori severity. This study aimed to investigate the reporting level on validity and reliability of patient-reported outcome measures of Katakori severity.<h4>Method</h4>A systema ...[more]

PMID: 30906552

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContinuity of care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the instruments measuring continuity of care and to assess the quality of their measurement properties.MethodsWe did a systematic review using the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, with an extensive search strategy including 'continuity of care', 'coordination of care', 'integration of care', 'patient centered care', 'case management' and its linguistic variations. We searched from 1995 to October 2011 and included articles describing the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments measuring one or more dimensions of continuity of care (1) care from the same provider who knows and follows the patient (personal continuity), (2) communication and cooperation between care providers in one care setting (team continuity), and (3) communication and cooperation between care providers in different care settings (cross-boundary continuity). We assessed the methodological quality of the measurement properties of each instrument using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsWe included 24 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 21 instruments. Ten instruments measured all three dimensions of continuity of care. Instruments were developed for different groups of patients or providers. For most instruments, three or four of the six measurement properties were assessed (mostly internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and construct validity). Six instruments scored positive on the quality of at least three of six measurement properties.ConclusionsMost included instruments have problems with either the number or quality of its assessed measurement properties or the ability to measure all three dimensions of continuity of care. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the use of one of the four most promising instruments, depending on the target population Diabetes Continuity of Care Questionnaire, Alberta Continuity of Services Scale-Mental Health, Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire, and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

Project description:The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P<0.001), with moderate and true heterogeneity (I2 = 53.47%, P = 0.003), presenting publication bias. A small effect size was identified regarding the reliability results, overestimating the results due to chance between the devices (ME = 0.207 [-0.798-1.212], P = 0.686), with low heterogeneity also due to chance (I2 = 19.44%, P = 0.253), with no publication bias. All of the evaluated studies showed some violation of the instruments, confirming the high risk of bias and the low methodological quality. There is concern with heterogeneity for the validity results explained by the subgroups' analysis. The P-US associated with anthropometric perimeters satisfactorily measures the BF% with samples greater than 100 participants, and males. The results in the reliability assessment show high agreement and high variability, greatly expanding the confidence interval, which should be viewed with reservations. This review received financial support from the Brazilian Air Force. The study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020166617.

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital prescribing error rates.Data sourcesThe following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL (January 1985-January 2013).Study selectionWe included studies that reported the detection and rate of prescribing errors in prescriptions for adult and/or pediatric hospital inpatients, or elaborated on the properties of severity assessment tools used by these studies. Studies not published in English, or that evaluated errors for only one disease or drug class, one route of administration, or one type of prescribing error, were excluded, as were letters and conference abstracts. One reviewer screened all abstracts and obtained complete articles. A second reviewer assessed 10 % of all abstracts and complete articles to check reliability of the screening process.AppraisalTools were appraised for country and method of development, whether the tool assessed actual or potential harm, levels of severity assessed, and results of any validity and reliability studies.ResultsFifty-seven percent of 107 studies measuring prescribing error rates included an assessment of severity. Forty tools were identified that assessed severity, only two of which had acceptable reliability and validity. In general, little information was given on the method of development or ease of use of the tools, although one tool required four reviewers and was thus potentially time consuming.LimitationsThe review was limited to studies written in English. One of the review authors was also the author of one of the tools, giving a potential source of bias.ConclusionA wide range of severity assessment tools are used in the literature. Developing a basis of comparison between tools would potentially be helpful in comparing findings across studies. There is a potential need to establish a less time-consuming method of measuring severity of prescribing error, with acceptable international reliability and validity.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious questionnaires targeting older adults' sedentary time have underestimated total sedentary time, possibly by not including all relevant specific sedentary behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the criterion validity and test-retest reliability of a new questionnaire assessing a comprehensive set of sedentary behaviors. Additionally, we examined whether the criterion validity of the questionnaire differed according to age, gender and educational level.MethodsA sample of home-dwelling Belgian older adults (>64 years, n?=?508) completed a newly-developed questionnaire assessing twelve specific sedentary behaviors and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days as criterion measure. A subsample (n?=?28) completed the questionnaire a second time to examine test-retest reliability. Data collection occurred between September 2010 and October 2012.ResultsCorrelational analyses examining self-reported total sitting time and accelerometer-derived sedentary time yielded a Spearman's ? of 0.30. Using the Bland-Altman regression procedure, self-reported total sitting time underestimated accelerometer-derived sedentary time by -82 minutes/day for a participant with an average level of sedentary time (539 minutes/day). Corresponding 95% limits of agreement were wide (-364, 200 minutes/day). Better, but still not ideal, validity findings were observed in the younger, male and tertiary-educated subgroups. Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC?>?0.70) was found for total sitting time, TV viewing, computer use, and driving a car.ConclusionValidity for older adults' self-reported total sitting time against accelerometer-derived sedentary time was not strong, but comparable to previous studies. However, underestimation of total sedentary time was lower compared to previous studies, possibly explained by the inclusion of additional specific sedentary behaviors. Further research is needed to develop self-report tools and objective criterion measures that accurately measure engagement in (specific) sedentary behavior(s) among different subgroups of the older population.

Project description:IntroductionSpeed is an important prerequisite in soccer. Therefore, a large number of tests have been developed aiming to investigate several speed skills relevant to soccer. This systematic review aimed to examine the validity and reliability of speed tests used in adult soccer players.MethodsA systematic search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they investigated speed tests in adult soccer players and reported validity (construct and criterion) or reliability (intraday and interday) data. The tests were categorized into linear-sprint, repeated-sprint, change-of-direction sprint, agility, and tests incorporating combinations of these skills.ResultsIn total, 90 studies covering 167 tests were included. Linear-sprint (n = 67) and change-of-direction sprint (n = 60) were studied most often, followed by combinations of the aforementioned (n = 21) and repeated-sprint tests (n = 15). Agility tests were examined fewest (n = 4). Mainly based on construct validity studies, acceptable validity was reported for the majority of the tests in all categories, except for agility tests, where no validity study was identified. Regarding intraday and interday reliability, ICCs>0.75 and CVs<3.0% were evident for most of the tests in all categories. These results applied for total and average times. In contrast, measures representing fatigue such as percent decrement scores indicated inconsistent validity findings. Regarding reliability, ICCs were 0.11-0.49 and CVs were 16.8-51.0%.ConclusionExcept for agility tests, several tests for all categories with acceptable levels of validity and high levels of reliability for adult soccer players are available. Caution should be given when interpreting fatigue measures, e.g., percent decrement scores. Given the lack of accepted gold-standard tests for each category, researchers and practitioners may base their test selection on the broad database provided in this systematic review. Future research should pay attention to the criterion validity examining the relationship between test results and match parameters as well as to the development and evaluation of soccer-specific agility tests.

Dataset Information

Reporting on the level of validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring Katakori severity: A systematic review.

Publications

Reporting on the level of validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring Katakori severity: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets