Dataset Information

Systematic review of the measurement properties of performance-based functional tests in patients with neck disorders.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and synthesise studies evaluating performance-based functional outcome measures designed to evaluate the functional abilities of patients with neck pain. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, COCHRANE, Google Scholar and a citation mapping strategy was conducted until July 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:More than half of the study's patient population had neck pain or a musculoskeletal neck disorder and completed a functional-based test. Clinimetric properties of at least one performance-based functional tests were reported. Both traumatic and non-traumatic origins of neck pain were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Relevant data were then extracted from selected articles using an extraction guide. Selected articles were appraised using the Quality Appraisal for Clinical Measurement Research Reports Evaluation Form (QACMRR). RESULTS:The search obtained 12 articles which reported on four outcome measures (functional capacity evaluations (FCE), Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Work Simulator II (BTEWS II), Functional Impairment Test-Hand and Neck/Shoulder/Arm (FIT-HaNSA)) and a physiotherapy test package, to assess the functional abilities in patients with mechanical neck pain. Of the selected papers: one reports content validity, five construct validity, four reliability, one sensitivity to change and one both reliability and construct validity. QACMRR scores ranged from 68% to 95%. CONCLUSIONS:This review found very good quality evidence that the FIT-HaNSA has excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and very weak to weak convergent validity. Excellent quality evidence of fair test-retest reliability, weak convergent validity and very weak known groups validity for the BTEWS II test was found. Good to excellent quality evidence exists that an FCE battery has poor to excellent reliability and very weak to strong validity. Good to excellent quality of weak to strong validity and trivial to strong effect sizes were found for a physiotherapy test package. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018112358.

SUBMITTER: McGee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLower extremity injury (LEI) is highly prevalent and its occurrence increases the risk of future injury in athletic populations. Identifying athletes at risk of injury is the key to target injury-prevention programmes. Functional performance tests (FPT) assess an athlete's ability to produce and accept forces during movement tasks reflective of those experienced in sport, and are used to identify deficits in physical qualities or neuromuscular control. This review aims to identify FPT which have potential to predict LEI and assess their measurement properties associated with reliability, validity, responsiveness and practicability (interpretability and feasibility).Methods/analysisThis protocol will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Methodology. The search strategy has two stages: stage 1 will identify lower limb FPT used in athletic populations; and stage 2 will assess the measurement properties of the identified FPT. A sensitive search strategy will use MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and SPORTdiscus databases; from inception to June 2020. Hand searching reference lists, key journals and grey literature will be completed. One reviewer will complete search 1 and data extraction. Two reviewers will complete the search, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment for search 2. Evidence will be pooled or summarised by individual measurement property by each individual study and grouped by FPT. Meta-analysis using a random effects model with subgroup analysis will be performed where possible. Pooled or summarised results for each FPT in relation to each measurement property will be rated against the criteria for good measurement properties. Two reviewers will assess the overall body of evidence per measurement property per FPT using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. This review will enable clinicians to make an informed choice when selecting FPT.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this review and the results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and submitted for conference presentation.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188932.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review was conducted with the first objective aimed at providing an overview of the physiological characteristics commonly evaluated in rugby and the corresponding tests used to measure each construct. Secondly, the measurement properties of all identified tests per physiological construct were evaluated with the ultimate purpose of identifying tests with strongest level of evidence per construct.MethodsThe review was conducted in two stages. In all stages, electronic databases of EBSCOhost, Medline and Scopus were searched for full-text articles. Stage 1 included studies examining physiological characteristics in rugby. Stage 2 included studies evaluating measurement properties of all tests identified in Stage 1 either in rugby or related sports such as Australian Rules football and Soccer. Two independent reviewers screened relevant articles from titles and abstracts for both stages.ResultsSeventy studies met the inclusion criteria for Stage 1. The studies described 63 tests assessing speed (8), agility/change of direction speed (7), upper-body muscular endurance (8), upper-body muscular power (6), upper-body muscular strength (5), anaerobic endurance (4), maximal aerobic power (4), lower-body muscular power (3), prolonged high-intensity intermittent running ability/endurance (5), lower-body muscular strength (5), repeated high-intensity exercise performance (3), repeated-sprint ability (2), repeated-effort ability (1), maximal aerobic speed (1) and abdominal endurance (1). Stage 2 identified 20 studies describing measurement properties of 21 different tests. Only moderate evidence was found for the reliability of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness. There was limited evidence found for the reliability and/or validity of 5 m, 10 m, 20 m speed tests, 505 test, modified 505 test, L run test, Sergeant Jump test and bench press repetitions-to-fatigue tests. There was no information from high-quality studies on the measurement properties of all the other tests identified in stage 1.ConclusionA number of physiological characteristics are evaluated in rugby. Each physiological construct has multiple tests for measurement. However, there is paucity of information on measurement properties from high-quality studies for the tests. This raises questions about the usefulness and applicability of these tests in rugby and creates a need for high-quality future studies evaluating measurement properties of these physiological tests.Trial registrationsPROSPERO CRD 42015029747.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is one of the leading causes of years lived with disability, and approximately half of people with neck pain experience recurrent episodes. Deficits in the sensorimotor system can persist even after pain relief, which may contribute to the chronic course of neck pain in some patients. Evaluation of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain is therefore important. No consensus exists on how sensorimotor capacities of the neck should be assessed in physiotherapy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to provide an overview of tests used in physiotherapy for assessment of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain; and (b) to provide information about reliability and measurement error of these tests, to enable physiotherapists to select appropriate tests.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies reporting data on the reliability and/or measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain. The results for reliability and measurement error were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the modified GRADE method proposed by the COSMIN group.ResultsA total of 206 tests for assessment of sensorimotor capacities of the neck were identified and categorized into 18 groups of tests. The included tests did not cover all aspects of the sensorimotor system; tests for the sensory and motor components were identified, but not for the central integration component. Furthermore, no data were found on reliability or measurement error for some tests that are used in practice, such as movement control tests, which apply to the motor component. Approximately half of the tests showed good reliability, and 12 were rated as having good (+) reliability. However, tests that evaluated complex movements, which are more difficult to standardize, were less reliable. Measurement error could not be evaluated because the minimal clinically important change was not available for all tests.ConclusionOverall, the quality of evidence is not yet high enough to enable clear recommendations about which tests to use to assess the sensorimotor capacities of the neck.

Project description:BackgroundWhiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most relevant outcome domains and their corresponding measurement instruments of choice. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and critically appraise the performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash population.MethodsThe following literature databases will be searched from their date of establishment: PubMed, Embase®, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and HAPI. All original articles evaluating the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash will be included, without additional restriction on their intended use, source of data, and structure. Risk of bias will be assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Findings of the studies will be judged against the criteria for good measurement properties, and results from all studies will be qualitatively summarized to generate an overall quality of findings. Overall quality of evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE approach, which will be used in conjunction with the overall quality of results for generation of recommendations. Two reviewers will perform all steps of the review independently. Discrepancies will be discussed between the reviewers, and in case of remaining disagreement, the senior reviewer will make the final decision.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarize the body of literature on health-related measurement instruments in whiplash, aiming to facilitate the selection of high-quality measurement instrument for researchers and physicians. Findings of this study will guide the ongoing efforts for development of a core outcome set.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.

Project description:The objectives of this study is to identify methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance (MP) and to evaluate their measurement properties. A secondary objective was to identify any reported adverse events associated with the methods to assess MP. Bibliographic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, and Cinahl databases. Eligible papers that satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised independently by two investigators. Four other investigators independently appraised any measurement properties of the assessment method according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. The qualities of the measurement properties were evaluated using predefined criteria. The level of evidence was rated by using data synthesis for each MP assessment method, where the rating was a product of methodological quality and measurement properties quality. All studies were quality assessed separately, initially, and subsequently for each method. Studies that described the use of identical assessment method received an individual score, and the pooled sum score resulted in an overall evidence synthesis. The level of evidence was synthesized across studies with an overall conclusion, that is, unknown, conflicting, limited, moderate, or strong evidence. Forty-six out of 9,908 articles were appraised, and the assessment methods were categorized as comminution (n = 21), mixing ability (n = 23), or other methods (n = 2). Different measurement properties were identified, in decreasing order construct validity (n = 30), reliability (n = 22), measurement error (n = 9), criterion validity (n = 6), and responsiveness (n = 4). No adverse events associated with any assessment methods were reported. In a clinical setting or as a diagnostic method, there are no gold standard methods for assessing MP with a strong level of evidence for all measurement properties. All available assessment methods with variable level of evidence require lab-intensive equipment, such as sieves or digital image software. Clinical trials with sufficient sample size, to infer trueness and precision, are needed for evaluating diagnostic values of available methods for assessing masticatory performance.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of the measurement properties of performance-based functional tests in patients with neck disorders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets