Dataset Information

Skin measurement devices to assess skin quality: A systematic review on reliability and validity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many treatments aim to slow down or reverse the visible signs of skin aging and thereby improve skin quality. Measurement devices are frequently employed to measure the effects of these treatments to improve skin quality, for example, skin elasticity, color, and texture. However, it remains unknown which of these devices is most reliable and valid.

Materials and methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Instruments were scored on reporting construct validity by means of convergent validity, interobserver, intraobserver, and interinstrument reliability.

Results

For the evaluation of skin color, 11 studies were included describing 16 measurement devices, analyzing 3172 subjects. The most reliable device for skin color assessment is the Minolta Chromameter CR-300 due to good interobserver, intraobserver, and interinstrument reliability. For skin elasticity, seven studies assessed nine types of devices analyzing 290 subjects in total. No intra and interobserver reliability was reported. Skin texture was assessed in two studies evaluating 72 subjects using three different types of measurement devices. The PRIMOS device reported excellent intra and interobserver reliability. None of the included reviewed devices could be determined to be valid based on construct validity.

Conclusion

The most reliable devices to evaluate skin color and texture in ordinary skin were, respectively, the Minolta Chromameter and PRIMOS. No reliable device is available to measure skin elasticity in ordinary skin and none of the included devices could be determined to be designated as valid.

SUBMITTER: Langeveld M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299221 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Sleep of pre-school aged children is important for their health and development, but there are currently no standards for measuring sleep in this age group. We aimed to examine the validity, reliability and feasibility of tools used to assess sleep of pre-school aged children. Methods: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they examined the validity and/or reliability and/or feasibility of a measurement tool used to examine sleep of pre-school aged children (aged 3-7 years). We systematically searched six electronic databases, grey literature and trial registries. We manually searched topic specific journals, reference and citations of included studies, and reference lists of existing reviews. We extracted data and conducted a risk of bias assessment on the included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We used a narrative synthesis to present the results. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria: these explored accelerometers (n = 3) and parental reported tools (n = 13; nine questionnaires, six diaries). Studies assessed construct validity (n = 3), criterion validity (n = 1), convergent validity (n = 13), test-retest reliability (n = 2), internal consistency (n = 4) and feasibility (n = 12). Most studies assessed the convergent validity of questionnaires and diaries compared with accelerometers, but the validity of accelerometers for sleep in this age group is unknown. Of studies with a low risk of bias, one sleep diary was shown to be valid for measuring sleep duration. No measurement tools were appropriate for determining sleep quality. Reporting of reliability and feasibility was minimal. Discussion: The evidence base in this field is limited, and most studies had high risk of bias. Future research on sleep in pre-school aged children should focus on assessing the validity, reliability and feasibility of accelerometers, which in turn will improve the quality of studies that assess questionnaires and diaries against accelerometers. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021230900; PROSPERO: CRD42021230900.

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.ObjectiveA systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.ResultsA total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.ConclusionMost of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increased risk of subsequent concussion and musculoskeletal injury upon return to play following a sports-related concussion. Whilst there are numerous assessments available for clinicians for diagnosis and during return to play following concussion, many may lack the ability to detect these subclinical changes in function. Currently, there is no consensus or collated sources on the reliability, validity and feasibility of these assessments, which makes it difficult for clinicians and practitioners to select the most appropriate assessment for their needs.ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to (1) consolidate the reliability and validity of motor function assessments across the time course of concussion management and (2) summarise their feasibility for clinicians and other end-users.MethodsA systematic search of five databases was conducted. Eligible studies were: (1) original research; (2) full-text English language; (3) peer-reviewed with level III evidence or higher; (4) assessed the validity of lower-limb motor assessments used to diagnose or determine readiness for athletes or military personnel who had sustained a concussion or; (5) assessed the test-retest reliability of lower-limb motor assessments used for concussion management amongst healthy athletes. Acceptable lower-limb motor assessments were dichotomised into instrumented and non-instrumented and then classified into static (stable around a fixed point), dynamic (movement around a fixed point), gait, and other categories. Each study was assessed using the COSMIN checklist to establish methodological and measurement quality.ResultsA total of 1270 records were identified, with 637 duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts of 633 records were analysed, with 158 being retained for full-text review. A total of 67 records were included in this review; 37 records assessed reliability, and 35 records assessed the validity of lower-limb motor assessments. There were 42 different assessments included in the review, with 43% being non-instrumented, subjective assessments. Consistent evidence supported the use of instrumented assessments over non-instrumented, with gait-based assessments demonstrating sufficient reliability and validity compared to static or dynamic assessments.ConclusionThese findings suggest that instrumented, gait-based assessments should be prioritised over static or dynamic balance assessments. The use of laboratory equipment (i.e. 3D motion capture, pressure sensitive walkways) on average exhibited sufficient reliability and validity, yet demonstrate poor feasibility. Further high-quality studies evaluating the reliability and validity of more readily available devices (i.e. inertial measurement units) are needed to fill the gap in current concussion management protocols. Practitioners can use this resource to understand the accuracy and precision of the assessments they have at their disposal to make informed decisions regarding the management of concussion.Trail registrationThis systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reg no. CRD42021256298).

Project description:Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) of pre-school aged children are associated with important health and developmental outcomes. Accurate measurement of these behaviours in young children is critical for research and practice in this area. The aim of this review was to examine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement tools used to assess PA and SB of pre-school aged children. Searches of electronic databases, and manual searching, were conducted to identify articles that examined the measurement properties (validity, reliability or feasibility) of measurement tools used to examine PA and/or SB of pre-school aged children (3–7 years old). Following screening, data were extracted and risk of bias assessment completed on all included articles. A total of 69 articles, describing 75 individual studies were included. Studies assessed measurement tools for PA (n = 27), SB (n = 5), and both PA and SB (n = 43). Outcome measures of PA and SB differed between studies (e.g. moderate to vigorous activity, step count, posture allocation). Most studies examined the measurement properties of one measurement tool only (n = 65). Measurement tools examined included: calorimetry, direct observation, combined heart rate and accelerometry, heart rate monitors, accelerometers, pedometers, and proxy report (parent, carer or teacher reported) measures (questionnaires or diaries). Studies most frequently assessed the validity (criterion and convergent) (n = 65), face and content validity (n = 2), test-retest reliability (n = 10) and intra-instrument reliability (n = 1) of the measurement tools. Feasibility data was abstracted from 41 studies. Multiple measurement tools used to measure PA and SB in pre-school aged children showed some degree of validity, reliability and feasibility, but often for different purposes. Accelerometers, including the Actigraph (in particular GT3X versions), Actical, ActivPAL and Fitbit (Flex and Zip), and proxy reported measurement tools used in combination may be useful for a range of outcome measures, to measure intensity alongside contextual information. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-021-01132-9.

Project description:BackgroundSubjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.ResultsThe systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.ConclusionLogs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.Registration numberCRD42018105994.

Project description:BackgroundInertial measurement units (IMUs) are useful in monitoring running and alerting running-related injuries in various sports settings. However, the quantitative summaries of the validity and reliability of the measurements from IMUs during running are still lacking. The purpose of this review was to investigate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of IMUs for measuring gait spatiotemporal outcomes and lower extremity kinematics of health adults during running.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) evaluated the validity or reliability of measurements from IMUs, (2) measured specific kinematic outcomes, (3) compared measurements using IMUs with those obtained using reference systems, (4) collected data during running, (5) assessed human beings and (6) were published in English. Eligible articles were reviewed using a modified quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of validity and reliability.ResultsTwenty-five articles were included in the systematic review, and data from 12 were pooled for meta-analysis. The methodological quality of studies ranged from low to moderate. Concurrent validity is excellent for stride length (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.937 (0.859, 0.972), p < 0.001), step frequency (ICC (95% CI) = 0.926 (0.896, 0.948), r (95% CI) = 0.989 (0.957, 0.997), p < 0.001) and ankle angle in the sagittal plane (r (95% CI) = 0.939 (0.544, 0.993), p = 0.002), moderate to excellent for stance time (ICC (95% CI) = 0.664 (0.354, 0.845), r (95% CI) = 0.811 (0.701, 0.881), p < 0.001) and good for running speed (ICC (95% CI) = 0.848 (0.523, 0.958), p = 0.0003). The summary Fisher's Z value of flight time was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). Similarly, the stance time showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.954 (0.903, 0.978), p < 0.001) and step frequency showed good test-retest reliability (ICC (95% CI) = 0.896 (0.837, 0.933), p < 0.001).ConclusionsFindings in the current review support IMUs measurement of running gait spatiotemporal parameters, but IMUs measurement of running kinematics on lower extremity joints needs to be reported with caution in healthy adults.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021279395.