Measurement Properties of the Craniocervical Flexion Test: A Systematic Review

Abstract Objective Patients with neck pain commonly have altered activity of the neck muscles. The craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) is used to assess the function of the deep neck flexor muscles in patients with musculoskeletal neck disorders. Systematic reviews summarizing the measurement properties of the CCFT are outdated. The objective of this study was to systematically review the measurement properties of the CCFT for assessing the deep neck flexor muscles. Methods The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Science Direct were searched in April 2019. Studies of any design that reported at least 1 measurement property of the CCFT for assessing the deep neck flexor muscles were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted data and rated the risk of bias of individual studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk-of-bias checklist. The overall rating for each measurement property was classified as “positive,” “indeterminate,” or “negative.” The overall rating was accompanied with a level of evidence. Results Fourteen studies were included in the data synthesis. The ratings were positive, and the level of evidence was moderate for interrater and intrarater reliability and convergent validity. There was conflicting rating and level of evidence for discriminative validity. Measurement error was indeterminate, with an unknown level of evidence. Responsiveness was negative, with a limited level of evidence. A limitation of this study was that only papers published in English were included. Conclusions The CCFT is a valid and reliable test that can be used in clinical practice as an assessment test. Because of the conflicting and low-quality evidence, caution is advised when using the CCFT as a discriminative test and as an outcome measure. Future better-designed studies are warranted.

Download Full-text

Measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019486 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. e019486 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Francisco Xavier de Araujo ◽

Giovanni Esteves Ferreira ◽

Maurício Scholl Schell ◽

Marcelo Peduzzi de Castro ◽

Marcelo Faria Silva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Measurement Property ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Patient Consent ◽

Flexor Muscles ◽

Flexion Test

IntroductionNeck pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide and it accounts for high economic and societal burden. Altered activation of the neck muscles is a common musculoskeletal impairment presented by patients with neck pain. The craniocervical flexion test with pressure biofeedback unit has been widely used in clinical practice to assess function of deep neck flexor muscles. This systematic review will assess the measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing deep cervical flexor muscles.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review that will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus and Science Direct will be systematically searched from inception. Studies of any design that have investigated and reported at least one measurement property of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing the deep cervical flexor muscles will be included. All measurement properties will be considered as outcomes. Two reviewers will independently rate the risk of bias of individual studies using the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments risk of bias checklist. A structured narrative synthesis will be used for data analysis. Quantitative findings for each measurement property will be summarised. The overall rating for a measurement property will be classified as ‘positive’, ‘indeterminate’ or ‘negative’. The overall rating will be accompanied with a level of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required since this is a systematic review based on published studies. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017062175.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023204 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e023204 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.2020-0386 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (9) ◽

pp. 1203-1215

Author(s):

Annie C. Jeffries ◽

Lee Wallace ◽

Aaron J. Coutts ◽

Shaun J. McLaren ◽

Alan McCall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Measurement Error ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Content Validity ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Multiple Item ◽

Monitoring Training

Background: Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties. Objectives: Part 1—identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2—assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria. Results: Part 1—from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2—from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items. Conclusions: The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Download Full-text

Measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties

BMJ Quality & Safety ◽

10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008260 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 327-337 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Sylvain Boet ◽

Nicole Etherington ◽

Sarah Larrigan ◽

Li Yin ◽

Hira Khan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Educational Interventions ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Crisis Situations

BackgroundEducational interventions to improve teamwork in crisis situations have proliferated in recent years with substantial variation in teamwork measurement. This systematic review aimed to synthesise available tools and their measurement properties in order to identify the most robust tool for measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations.MethodsSearches were conducted in Embase (via OVID), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Medline and Medline In-Process (via OVID) (through 12 January 2017). Studies evaluating the measurement properties of teamwork assessment tools for teams in clinical or simulated crisis situations were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on predetermined criteria and completed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1822 references. Twenty studies were included, representing 13 assessment tools. Tools were primarily assessed in simulated resuscitation scenarios for emergency department teams. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) had the most validation studies (n=5), which demonstrated three sources of validity (content, construct and concurrent) and three sources of reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability). Most studies of TEAM’s measurement properties were at no risk of bias.ConclusionsA number of tools are available for assessing teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations. Although selection will ultimately depend on the user’s context, TEAM may be the most promising tool given its measurement evidence. Currently, there is a lack of tools to assess teamwork performance during intraoperative crisis situations. Additional research is needed in this regard.

Download Full-text

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess sleep in postpartum women using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines

SLEEP ◽

10.1093/sleep/zsab128 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

P Sultan ◽

K Ando ◽

E Sultan ◽

J Hawkins ◽

L Blake ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Postpartum Women ◽

Measurement Property ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Class A ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Psychometric Measurement

Abstract Study Objectives We performed a systematic review to identify the best patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of postpartum sleep in women. Methods We searched 4 databases for validated PROMs used to assess postpartum sleep. Studies were considered if they evaluated at least 1 psychometric measurement property of a PROM. An overall rating was assigned for each psychometric measurement property of each PROM based upon COSMIN criteria. A modified GRADE approach was used to assess the level of evidence and recommendations were then made for each PROM. Results We identified 15 validation studies of 8 PROMs, in 9,070 postpartum women. An adequate number of sleep domains was assessed by 5 PROMs: Bergen Insomnia Scale (BIS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), General Sleep Disturbance Scale (GSDS), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS) and the Sleep Symptom Checklist (SSC). BIS and GSDS were the only PROMs to demonstrate adequate content validity and at least a low level of evidence of sufficient internal consistency, resulting in Class A recommendations. The BIS was the only PROM, which is easily accessible and free to use for non-commercial research, that achieved a Class A recommendation. Conclusion The BIS is the best currently available PROM of postpartum sleep. However, this PROM fails to assess several important domains such as sleep duration (and efficiency), chronotype, sleep-disordered breathing and medication usage. Future studies should focus on evaluating the psychometric measurement properties of BIS in the North American setting and in different cultural groups, or to develop a more specific PROM of postpartum sleep.

Download Full-text

Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. e036038

Author(s):

Sonia Lorente ◽

Carme Viladrich ◽

Jaume Vives ◽

Josep-Maria Losilla

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Meta Review ◽

Methodological Guidelines

ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews.DesignMeta-review.MethodsElectronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.ResultsA total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness).ConclusionsThe reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065232.

Download Full-text

Measurement properties of instruments assessing permanent functional impairment of the spine: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019276 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. e019276

Author(s):

Suelen Meira Goes ◽

Catherine M Trask ◽

Catherine Boden ◽

Brenna Bath ◽

Daniel Cury Ribeiro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Functional Impairment ◽

Full Text ◽

Health And Safety ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Future Research ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Functional Impairments ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Level Of Evidence

IntroductionPermanent functional impairment (PFI) of the spine is a rating system used by compensation authorities, such as workers compensation boards, to establish an appropriate level of financial compensation for persistent loss of function. Determination of PFI of the spine is commonly based on the assessment of spinal movement combined with other measures of physical and functional impairments; however, the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments used for these evaluations have yet to be established. The aim of this study is to systematically review and synthesise the literature concerning measurement properties of the various and different instruments used for assessing PFI of the spine.MethodsThree conceptual groups of terms (1) PFI, (2) spinal disorder and (3) measurement properties will be combined to search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, OTSeeker and Health and Safety Science Abstracts. We will examine peer-reviewed, full-text articles over the full available date range. Two reviewers will independently screen citations (title, abstract and full text) and perform data extraction. Included studies will be appraised as to their methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments criteria. Findings will be summarised and presented descriptively, with meta-analysis pursued as appropriate.Ethics and disseminationThis review will summarise the current level of evidence of measurement properties of instruments used for assessing PFI of the spine. Findings of this review may be applicable to clinicians, policy-makers, workers’ compensation boards, other insurers and health and safety organisations. The findings will likely provide a foundation and direction for future research priorities for assessing spinal PFI.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060390.

Download Full-text

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

Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders ◽

10.1159/000515678 ◽

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

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Download Full-text

Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042325 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e042325

Author(s):

Qirong Chen ◽

Chongmei Huang ◽

Aimee R Castro ◽

Siyuan Tang

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Target Population ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Nursing Research ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Research Competence ◽

Scoping Reviews

IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Levac et al’s additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Download Full-text

What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-32193/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Pasquale Sansone ◽

Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽

Mario Faenza ◽

Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽

Sara Izzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Breast Surgery ◽

The United States ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Anesthetic Techniques ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Locoregional Anesthesia ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.Objectives: To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques.Conclusion: The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

Download Full-text