Motor imagery ability assessments in four disciplines: protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionMotor imagery (MI) is a very popular and well-accepted technique in different disciplines. Originating from sport and psychology, MI is now also used in the field of medicine and education. Several studies confirmed the benefits of MI to facilitate motor learning and skill acquisition. The findings indicated that individual’s MI ability might influence the effectiveness of MI interventions. Over the last two centuries, researchers have developed several assessments to evaluate MI’s abstract construct. However, no systematic reviews (SR) exist for MI ability evaluation methods and their measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe SR will evaluate available MI ability assessments and their psychometric properties in four relevant disciplines: sports, psychology, medicine and education. This involves performing searches in SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC. Working independently, two reviewers will screen articles for selection. Then all raw information will be compiled in an overview table—including the articles’ characteristics (eg, a study’s setting or the population demographics) and the MI ability assessment (psychometric properties). To evaluate the articles’ methodological quality, we will use the COSMIN checklist. Then we will evaluate all the included assessments’ quality and perform a best-evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe SR is based on published data, and ethical approval is not required. This review will provide information on assessment performance and equipment, as well as its main focus and usefulness. Furthermore, we will present the methodological quality of all the included articles and assess the included instruments’ quality. Ultimately, this will act as a valuable resource, providing an overview of MI ability assessments for individual clinical settings, treatment aims, and various populations. The SR’s final report will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017077004

Download Full-text

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement – a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-021-01231-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Stefanie Bühn ◽

Peggy Ober ◽

Tim Mathes ◽

Uta Wegewitz ◽

Anja Jacobs ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychometric Properties ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Perfect Agreement ◽

Retest Reliability ◽

Test Retest Reliability ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Systematic Reviews (SRs) can build the groundwork for evidence-based health care decision-making. A sound methodological quality of SRs is crucial. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a widely used tool developed to assess the methodological quality of SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research shows that AMSTAR seems to be valid and reliable in terms of interrater reliability (IRR), but the test retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR has never been investigated. In our study we investigated the TRR of AMSTAR to evaluate the importance of its measurement and contribute to the discussion of the measurement properties of AMSTAR and other quality assessment tools. Methods Seven raters at three institutions independently assessed the methodological quality of SRs in the field of occupational health with AMSTAR. Between the first and second ratings was a timespan of approximately two years. Answers were dichotomized, and we calculated the TRR of all raters and AMSTAR items using Gwet’s AC1 coefficient. To investigate the impact of variation in the ratings over time, we obtained summary scores for each review. Results AMSTAR item 4 (Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?) provided the lowest median TRR of 0.53 (moderate agreement). Perfect agreement of all reviewers was detected for AMSTAR-item 1 with a Gwet’s AC1 of 1, which represented perfect agreement. The median TRR of the single raters varied between 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.89 (almost perfect agreement). Variation of two or more points in yes-scored AMSTAR items was observed in 65% (73/112) of all assessments. Conclusions The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR.. However, more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties. Our results may initiate discussion of the importance of considering the TRR of assessment tools. A further examination of the TRR of AMSTAR, as well as other recently established rating tools such as AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), would be useful.

Download Full-text

Suffering measurement instruments in palliative care: protocol for a systematic psychometric review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027524 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. e027524 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Daniel Gutiérrez Sánchez ◽

Rafael Gómez García ◽

Isabel María López-Medina ◽

Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

End Of Life ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Advanced Disease ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Selection Of

IntroductionThe prevention and relief of suffering are regarded as a goal at the end of life; therefore, suffering assessment at the end of life is essential. In this regard, we need instruments that allow us to evaluate this construct for gathering more evidence, as the assessment of suffering is increasingly used in research and the clinical setting. Many measures have been designed to assess this construct, and the selection of the most appropriate instrument is crucial. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties and (2) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. A systematic psychometric review of measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties will be carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Searches will be conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Open Grey, Scopus, Web of Science and COSMIN database of systematic reviews, and it will be limited by time (1980–2018) and language (only literature in English and Spanish). Literature will be evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the COSMIN checklist, and measurement properties data of each study that meet the inclusion criteria will be scored independently by two researchers according to COSMIN quality ratings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106488.

Download Full-text

Pain associated with psoriasis: systematic scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031461 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e031461

Author(s):

Ana Sanader Vucemilovic ◽

Danijela Nujic ◽

Livia Puljak

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Published Data ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Chronic Skin ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionPsoriasis is a common chronic skin inflammatory disease. Its presentation, apart from affected skin areas, involves other unpleasant symptoms, such as pain. Pain deteriorates the patient’s quality of life, impairing their daily behaviour and functioning. Therefore, the alleviation of pain in patients with psoriasis should be one of the most desired outcomes of successful treatment. The aim of this study is to summarise available evidence about pain in patients with psoriasis using systematic scoping review methodology in order to map the relevant literature.Methods and analysesOur scoping systematic review will provide evidence synthesis of the literature, both quantitative and qualitative, about the pain associated with psoriasis, including pain associated with psoriatic arthritis. Any types of studies will be eligible for inclusion, and we will not have any time, language or publication status restrictions. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO via OVID, as well as Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCO, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. All databases will be searched from the date of their inception. Retrieved bibliographic records and potentially relevant full texts will be screened by two authors independently. Two researchers will extract data independently. Any discrepancies will be resolved via discussion or consultation of the third author, if necessary. To appraise studies, we will use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, AMSTAR 2, Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study will not be conducted with human participants. We will only use published data and therefore ethics approval is not required. Our findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conference reports.

Download Full-text

Nutritional Status Measurement Instruments for Diabetes: A Systematic Psychometric Review

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17165719 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (16) ◽

pp. 5719

Author(s):

Pedro Montagut-Martínez ◽

David Pérez-Cruzado ◽

José Joaquín García-Arenas

Keyword(s):

Nutritional Status ◽

Dietary Intake ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Premature Death ◽

Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Individual Treatment ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Increased Risk

Background: Diabetes is a serious chronic disease associated with a large number of complications and an increased risk of premature death. A dietary evaluation is of utmost importance for health promotion, disease prevention and individual treatment plans in patients with diabetes. Methods: An exhaustive search was carried out in various databases—Medline, Web of Science, Open Gray Cochrane Library and Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN)—for systematic review of the measurement properties of instruments that evaluate the dietary intake of people with diabetes mellitus type 1 and/or 2 according to COSMIN standards. Results: Seven instruments were identified. There was no instrument measuring nutritional status for which all the psychometric properties were evaluated. The methodological quality for each of the psychometric properties evaluated was ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’ for all instruments. The Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) evaluated the most psychometric characteristics and with a better score in terms of quality of the evidence. Conclusions: Several instruments have been developed for the evaluation of dietary intake in people with diabetes. Evaluation of this construct is very useful, both in clinical practice and in research, requiring new knowledge in this area. The FFQ is the best instrument available to assess dietary intake in people with diabetes.

Download Full-text

Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth ◽

10.1186/s12884-020-03496-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ryan Chow ◽

Eileen Huang ◽

Allen Li ◽

Sophie Li ◽

Sarah Y. Fu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Postpartum Depression ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

A Priori ◽

Behavioural Therapy ◽

Therapeutic Interventions ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

Download Full-text

Methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: protocol and rationale

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045987 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e045987

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Andrea C Tricco ◽

Areti-Angeliki Veroniki ◽

Sofia Dias ◽

Brian Hutton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Methodological Review ◽

Multiple Treatment ◽

Full Study ◽

Multiple Treatments ◽

Treatment Comparisons

IntroductionSystematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA; ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated.Methods and analysisWe will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Taping for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciosis

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association ◽

10.7547/1000041 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 100 (1) ◽

pp. 41-51 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Alexander T. M. van de Water ◽

Caroline M. Speksnijder

Keyword(s):

Health Care Providers ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Plantar Fascia ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Care Providers ◽

Short Term ◽

Best Evidence Synthesis ◽

Evidence Database

Background: The proximal insertional disorder of the plantar fascia is plantar fasciosis. Although plantar fasciosis is frequently seen by different health-care providers, indistinctness of etiology and pathogenesis is still present. A variety of interventions are seen in clinical practice. Taping constructions are frequently used for the treatment of plantar fasciosis. However, a systematic review assessing the efficacy of this therapy modality is not available. Methods: To assess the efficacy of a taping construction as an intervention or as part of an intervention in patients with plantar fasciosis on pain and disability, controlled trials were searched for in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PEDro using a specific search strategy. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to judge methodological quality. Clinical relevance was assessed with five specific questions. A best-evidence synthesis consisting of five levels of evidence was applied for qualitative analysis. Results: Five controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Three trials with high methodological quality and of clinical relevance contributed to the best-evidence synthesis. The findings were strong evidence of pain improvement at 1-week follow-up, inconclusive results for change in level of disability in the short term, and indicative findings that the addition of taping on stretching exercises has a surplus value. Conclusions: There is limited evidence that taping can reduce pain in the short term in patients with plantar fasciosis. The effect on disability is inconclusive. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100(1): 41–51, 2010)

Download Full-text

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.18005.2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 221 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Assem M. Khamis ◽

Lara A. Kahale ◽

Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽

Holger J. Schünemann ◽

Elie A. Akl

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prospective Longitudinal ◽

Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a COSMIN systematic review protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1240-0 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Brett Williams ◽

Bronwyn Beovich

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Future Research ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Jefferson Scale Of Empathy

Abstract Background Empathy is an important characteristic to possess for healthcare professionals. It has been found to improve communication between professionals and patients and to improve clinical health outcomes. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed to measure this quality and has been used extensively, and psychometrically appraised, with a variety of cohorts and in different cultural environments. However, no study has been undertaken to systematically examine the methodological quality of studies which have assessed psychometric factors of the JSE. This systematic review will examine the quality of published papers that have reported on psychometric factors of the JSE. Methods A systematic review of studies which report on the psychometric properties of the JSE will be conducted. We will use a predefined search strategy to identify studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: original data is reported on for at least one of the psychometric measurement properties described in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist, examines the JSE in a healthcare cohort (using the student, physician or health profession versions of the JSE), and is published from January 2001 and in the English language. Conference abstracts, editorials and grey literature will be excluded. Six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL) will be systematically searched for articles meeting these criteria and studies will be assessed for eligibility by two review authors. The methodological quality of included papers will be examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Discussion A narrative description of the findings will be presented along with summary tables. Recommendations for use of the JSE with various cohorts and circumstances will be offered which may inform future research in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018111412

Download Full-text

Management of haemorrhoids: protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035287 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. e035287

Author(s):

Min Chen ◽

Tai-Chun Tang ◽

Tao-Hong He ◽

Yong-Jun Du ◽

Di Qin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Final Report ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Effect Model ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

IntroductionThe prevalence of haemorrhoidal diseases was high in general population, and many treatments are proposed for the management of haemorrhoids. The treatments include conservative and surgical interventions; the credibility and strength of current evidence of their effectiveness are not comprehensively evaluated. We aim to evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the effectiveness of the treatments for haemorrhoidal diseases through an umbrella review.Methods and analysisWe will search Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science from inception to March 2020 without any language restriction. We will include meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of treatments in the management of haemorrhoids. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, and they will extract data from the included meta-analyses. For each meta-analysis, we will estimate the effect size of a treatment through the random-effect model and the fixed-effect model, and we will evaluate between-study heterogeneity (Cochrane’s Q and I2statistics) and small-study effect (Egger’s test); we will also estimate the evidence of excess significance bias. Evidence of each treatment will be graded according to prespecified criteria. Methodological quality of each meta-analysis will be evaluated by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2. The corrected cover area method will be used to assess the impact of overlap in reviews on the findings of the umbrella review.Ethics and disseminationWe will present the results of the umbrella review at conferences and publish the final report in a peer-reviewed journal. The umbrella review does not require ethical approval.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140702.

Download Full-text