Measures of central sensitisation and their measurement properties in musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review

Physiotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. e198
Author(s):  
N. Middlebrook ◽  
N.R. Heneghan ◽  
D. Abichandani ◽  
P. Kuithan ◽  
A. Rushton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Central Sensitisation ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

scholarly journals Measures of central sensitisation and their measurement properties in the adult musculoskeletal trauma population: a protocol for a systematic review and data synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e023204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Middlebrook ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Central Sensitisation ◽  
Trauma Population ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

IntroductionPain following musculoskeletal trauma is common with poor outcomes and disability well documented. Pain is complex in nature and can include the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, inflammatory and central sensitisation (CS). CS can be measured in multiple ways; however, no systematic review has evaluated the measurement properties of such measures in the musculoskeletal trauma population. This systematic review aims to evaluate the measurement properties of current measures of CS in this population.Methods/analysisThis protocol is informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar as well as key journals and grey literature will be searched in two stages to (1) identify what measures are being used to assess CS in this population and (2) evaluate the measurement properties of the identified measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data, assess risk of bias for included studies and assess overall quality. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist and a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be used. Meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed appropriate. Alternatively, a narrative synthesis will be conducted and summarised per measurement property per outcome measure.Ethics and disseminationThis review will aid clinicians in using the most appropriate tool for assessing central sensitisation in this population and is the first step towards a more standardised approach in pain assessment. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registrationnumberCRD42018091531.

scholarly journals Measures of central sensitization and their measurement properties in musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Nicola Middlebrook ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Deepa Abichandani ◽  
Pauline Kuithan ◽  
Nicola R. Heneghan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Sensitization ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

scholarly journals Apathy Measures in Older Adults and People with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties Using the COSMIN Methodology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Clare Burgon ◽  
Sarah Elizabeth Goldberg ◽  
Veronika van der Wardt ◽  
Catherine Brewin ◽  
Rowan H. Harwood
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Apathy is highly prevalent in dementia and is also seen in mild cognitive impairment and the general population. Apathy contributes to failure to undertake daily activities and can lead to health problems or crises. It is therefore important to assess apathy. However, there is currently no gold standard measure of apathy. A comprehensive systematic review of the measurement properties of apathy scales is required. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018094390). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that aimed to develop or assess the validity or reliability of an apathy scale in participants over 65 years, living in the community. A systematic review was conducted in line with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments procedure for reviewing patient-reported outcome measures. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed, and all relevant measurement properties were assessed for quality. Results were pooled and rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation procedure. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fifty-seven publications regarding 18 measures and 39 variations met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of individual studies ranged from inadequate to very good and measurement properties ranged from insufficient to sufficient. Similarly, the overall evidence for measurement properties ranged from very low to high quality. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) had sufficient content validity, reliability, construct validity, and where applicable, structural validity and internal consistency. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Numerous scales are available to assess apathy, with varying psychometric properties. The AES and LARS are recommended for measuring apathy in older adults and people living with dementia. The apathy dimension of the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory should be limited to screening for apathy.

scholarly journals Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hyperhidrosis: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Gabes ◽  
Helge Knüttel ◽  
Gesina Kann ◽  
Christina Tischer ◽  
Christian J. Apfelbacher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Purpose To critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of all existing PROMs that have been validated in hyperhidrosis to at least some extend by applying the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Thereby, we aim to give a recommendation for the use of PROMs in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Methods We considered studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement properties of PROMs as eligible. A systematic literature search in three big databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Furthermore, we applied predefined quality criteria for good measurement properties and finally, graded the quality of the evidence. Results Twenty-four articles reporting on 13 patient-reported outcome measures were included. Three instruments can be further recommended for use. They showed evidence for sufficient content validity and moderate- to high-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The methodological assessment showed existing evidence gaps for eight other PROMs, which therefore require further validation studies to make an adequate decision on their recommendation. The Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure-Axillary (HDSM-Ax) and the short-form health survey with 36 items (SF-36) were the only questionnaires not recommended for use in patients with hyperhidrosis due to moderate- to high-quality evidence for insufficient measurement properties. Conclusion Three PROMs, the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index (HidroQoL), the Hyperhidrosis Questionnaire (HQ) and the Sweating Cognitions Inventory (SCI), can be recommended for use in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Results obtained with these three instruments can be seen as trustworthy. Nevertheless, further validation of all three PROMs is desirable. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170247

scholarly journals A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca McKeown ◽  
David R. Ellard ◽  
Abdul-Rasheed Rabiu ◽  
Eleni Karasouli ◽  
Rebecca S. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. Results The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

Pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI)—systematic review of measurement properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Tavares de Arruda ◽  
Thaise dos Santos Henrique ◽  
Janeisa Franck Virtuoso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pelvic Floor ◽  
Measurement Properties

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Davies ◽  
R. Macefield ◽  
K. Avery ◽  
J. M. Blazeby ◽  
S. Potter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

Abstract Background Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach. Results Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality. Conclusions BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document