Dataset Information

Spinal cord injury and quality of life: a systematic review of outcome measures.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: According to current estimates, there are more than 1 million people living with a spinal cord injury (SCI) in the United States alone. Given the potentially devastating impact of SCI on health-related quality of life (QoL), we sought to gain an improved understanding of QoL outcomes in SCI. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe common QoL outcomes measures in patients with SCI. METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published from 1998 through December 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify measures or indices used to evaluate QoL outcomes in patients with SCI. The titles and abstracts of the SCI peer-reviewed literature were searched to determine which of these outcome measures were most commonly used to evaluate QoL in patients with SCI. RESULTS: We identified 27 outcome measures used to evaluate QoL in patients with SCI. In SCI literature, the six most commonly used objective outcome measures were the Short-form 36 (SF-36); Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART); Short-form 12 (SF-12); Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68); Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNL); and Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ). The six subjective measures that were most frequently used were the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Quality of Life Index (QLI); Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LISAT-9/-1); World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF scale (WHOQOL-BREF); Perceived Quality of Life (PQOL); and global QoL. All six objective measures have been validated in an SCI population, and four of the six subjective measures have been similarly validated. Three of each of the objective and subjective measures have been reliability tested in a population with SCI. CONCLUSION: In addition to neurological and functional changes after SCI, QoL outcomes should be routinely assessed. Choice of appropriate QoL measure should be influenced by the study objectives and design, as well as the psychometric properties of the particular measure within the context of SCI.

SUBMITTER: Wilson JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3427971 | biostudies-other | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine whether non-invasive electrical stimulation (ES) is effective at reducing spasticity in people living with spinal cord injury (SCI). PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched in April 2022. Primary outcome measures were the Ashworth scale (AS), Modified Ashworth scale (MAS), Pendulum test and the Penn spasm frequency scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes were the Hoffman (H)- reflex, motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and posterior-root reflexes (PRRs). A random-effects model, using two correlation coefficients, ( Corr=0.1 , Corr=0.2 ) determined the difference between baseline and post-intervention measures for RCTs. A quantitative synthesis amalgamated data from studies with no control group (non-RCTs). Twenty-nine studies were included: five in the meta-analysis and 17 in the amalgamation of non-RCT studies. Twenty studies measured MAS or AS scores, 14 used the Pendulum test and one used the PSFS. Four measured the H-reflex and no studies used MEPs or PRRs. Types of ES used were: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSCS), functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling and FES gait. Meta-analyses of 3 studies using the MAS and 2 using the Pendulum test were carried out. For MAS scores, non-invasive ES was effective at reducing spasticity compared to a control group (p = 0.01, Corr=0.1 ; p = 0.002, Corr=0.2 ). For Pendulum test outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups. Quantitative synthesis of non-RCT studies revealed that 22 of the 29 studies reported improvement in at least one measure of spasticity following non-invasive ES, 13 of which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Activation of the muscle was not necessary to reduce spasticity. Non-invasive ES can reduce spasticity in people with SCI, according to MAS scores, for both RCT and non-RCT studies, and Pendulum test values in non-RCT studies. This review could not correlate between clinical and neurophysiological outcomes; we recommend the additional use of neurophysiological outcomes for future studies. The use of TSCS and TENS, which did not induce a muscle contraction, indicate that activation of afferent fibres is at least required for non-invasive ES to reduce spasticity.

Project description:BackgroundAfter a spinal cord injury, quality of life, as well as the determinants of quality of life, has been widely assessed. However, to date, there have been no systematic reviews on the impact of quality improvement strategies, including self-management strategies, on the quality of life and well-being of individuals with a spinal cord injury. The current protocol outlines a strategy for a systematic review that aims to identify, assess, and synthesize evidence on the impact of quality improvement strategies on the quality of life and physical and psychological well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury.Methods/designAll study designs, except qualitative studies will be included. Studies reporting on quality improvement including audit and feedback, case management, team changes, electronic patient registries, clinician education, clinical reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information to clinicians, patient education, (promotion of) self-management, patient reminder systems, and continuous quality improvement among individuals with spinal cord injury will be included. The primary outcome is quality of life. The secondary outcomes are physical and psychological well-being. Studies will be included regardless of publication status, year of dissemination, or language of dissemination. Potentially relevant articles not written in English will be translated. We will search Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. The use of these databases will be supplemented by other data sources, including unpublished data. Two independent reviewers will conduct all levels of screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. Results will be grouped according to the target group of the varying quality improvement strategies (that is, health system, health-care professionals, or patients) and/or by any other noteworthy grouping variable, such as etiology of spinal cord condition or by sex. If deemed appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted.DiscussionThis systematic review will identify those quality improvement strategies aimed at the health system, health-care professionals, and patients that impact the quality of life and well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury. Knowledge and application of such quality improvement strategies may reduce inappropriate health-care utilization costs, such as acute care inpatient readmission in the years post injury. Prospero registry number: CRD42012003058.

Dataset Information

Spinal cord injury and quality of life: a systematic review of outcome measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets