scholarly journals Observational Gait Assessment Scales in Patients with Walking Disorders: Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Ridao-Fernández ◽  
Elena Pinero-Pinto ◽  
Gema Chamorro-Moriana
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Gait Cycle ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Metric Properties ◽  
Gait Assessment ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
Assessment Scales

Objective. To compile and analyze the characteristics and methodological quality of observational gait assessment scales validated to date. Methods. PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Dialnet, Spanish Medical Index, and Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Podiatry databases were searched up to August 2019. The main inclusion criteria were validated tools based on a conceptual framework developed to evaluate gait, validation design studies of observational scales in their entirety, and articles written in English or Spanish. Evaluators extracted descriptive information of the scales and the metric properties of the studies, which were further analyzed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN checklist). Results. Eighteen articles based on 14 scales were included. The populations were neurological patients (72.22%), musculoskeletal disorders (11.11%), and other areas such as vestibular disorders (11.11%). The most addressed items were orthopedic aids (64.29%); phases of the gait cycle and kinematics of the leg and trunk (57.14% each one); and spatial and temporal parameters (50%). All studies analyzed criterion validity, and five included content or structural validity (27.78%). Fifteen articles considered reliability (83.33%). Regarding the seven-item scale QUADAS-2, five studies obtained six results on “low” risk of bias or “low” concerns regarding applicability. Nine articles obtained at least a “fair” result on COSMIN checklist. Conclusions. A necessary compilation of the observational gait assessment scales validated to date was conducted. Besides, their characteristics and methodological quality were analyzed. Most scales were applied in neurological signs. The most approached topics were orthopedic aids, phases of the gait cycle, and kinematics of the leg and trunk. The scale that demonstrated a higher methodological quality was Visual Gait Assessment Scale, followed by CHAGS, Salford Gait Tool, and Edinburgh Visual Gait Score.

Instruments for Measuring Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 100 (9) ◽  
pp. 1690-1700
Author(s):  
Daniel Gutiérrez-Sánchez ◽  
David Pérez-Cruzado ◽  
Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Objective Several instruments to measure patient satisfaction have been developed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The selection of the most appropriate instrument is very important. The purpose of this study was to identify instruments for assessing satisfaction with physical therapy care and their psychometric properties and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on psychometric properties. Methods A systematic search was conducted in ProQuest Medline, SciELO, ProQuest PsycINFO, Theseus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Articles published from 1990 to 2019, in English and Spanish, were used as limits. This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. The articles were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point checklist. Eighteen studies were included. Results Nine instruments were found to be specifically designed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The methodological quality of the studies was “fair” for most of the psychometric characteristics analyzed (43 items), with 24 properties scored as “poor,” 5 as “good,” and 3 as “excellent.” Conclusions Different instrument characteristics—such as the scope and population with which the instrument will be used, its dimensions, the number of items, and the evidence shown in the evaluation of each psychometric property—should be considered by clinicians and researchers to decide which instrument is the best to measure the construct of patient satisfaction with physical therapy. Impact Evaluating patient satisfaction is very useful in clinical practice at the hospital, community, and primary care levels. Physical therapist clinicians and researchers can use this systematic review to select instruments whose characteristics will best measure their patients’ satisfaction with physical therapy care.

scholarly journals How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Martins Paiva ◽  
Matheus de França Perazzo ◽  
Fernanda Ruffo Ortiz ◽  
Isabela Almeida Pordeus ◽  
Paulo Antônio Martins-Júnior
Keyword(s):  
Oral Health ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Impact

Abstract In the last decades, several instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals. However, some instruments lack thorough methodological validation or present conceptual differences that hinder comparisons with instruments. Thus, it can be difficult to clinicians and researchers to select a questionnaire that accurately reflect what are really meaningful to individuals. This short communication aimed to discuss the importance of use an appropriate checklist to select an instrument with a good methodological quality. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to provide tools for evidence-based instrument selection. The COSMIN checklist comprises ten boxes that evaluate whether a study meets the standard for good methodological quality and two additional boxes to meet studies that use the Item Response Theory method and general requirements for results generalization, resulting in four steps to be followed. In this way, it is required at least some expertise in psychometrics or clinimetrics to a wide-ranging use of this checklist. The COSMIN applications include its use to ensure the standardization of cross-cultural adaptations and safer comparisons between measurement studies and evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews of measurement properties. Also, it can be used by students when training about measurement properties and by editors and reviewers when revising manuscripts on this topic. The popularization of COSMIN checklist is therefore necessary to improve the selection and evaluation of health measurement instruments.

scholarly journals A Critical Review of Adversity Quotient Instruments: Using the Cosmin Checklist

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
YANG DI
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Measurement Quality ◽  
Development Methodology ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
High Measurement ◽  
Single Instrument

Adversity intelligence and adversity quotient is the critical ability and robust predictor of a person’s success. However, no consensus and generalized instrument have been established. Hence, the study aims to assess the methodological quality and measurement features of the existing tools for adversity intelligence by identifying and evaluating the instruments following the consensus-based standards for selecting health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. From 255 research studies, six tools were eligible by a systematic review of online databases and books. For three or more of the nine COSMIN criteria, only two of the instruments had strong to moderate levels of evidence. Meanwhile, none of the instruments met any of the criteria. These results demonstrate that no single instrument outperforms all others in all circumstances. Tools that will be refined in the future should capture the development, methodology, and quality during the development of the instrument and achieve a high measurement quality and a generalized tool of measuring adversity intelligence.

scholarly journals 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.

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.

Measurement properties of family resilience assessment questionnaires: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 581-591
Author(s):  
Jia Zhou ◽  
Bin He ◽  
Yaoyu He ◽  
Wei Huang ◽  
Hongxu Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Family Resilience ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Social Domain ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
The Family ◽  
Resilience Assessment

Abstract Background There have been numerous measurement questionnaires to estimate the level of family resilience. However, we lack published evidence regarding the most appropriate family resilience questionnaire in different adversity domains. Objective This study critically assesses and contrasts the measurement properties of questionnaires measuring family resilience in two domains: health care domain and social domain. Methods Ten electronic databases were searched for studies concerning the establishment, adaptation or evaluation of the measurement properties of a family resilience assessment questionnaire. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. On the basis of methodological quality and scoring criteria for the quality of questionnaires, the overall evidence of each questionnaire was rated. Results A total of 4084 initial studies were obtained, 23 of which met our inclusion criteria assessing 12 different questionnaires. The structural validity (23 studies) and internal consistency (22 studies) were the most frequently used measurement properties. Only two studies tested responsiveness, and the measurement error was not examined in any studies. The Family Resilience Assessment Scale (FRAS) and Italian version of the Walsh Family Resilience Questionnaire (Walsh-IT) showed positive evidence in health care domain. The FRAS performed well in social domain with specific adversity, and the Family Resilience Questionnaire (FRQ) received a good score in social domain without specific adversity. Conclusion For health care domain, we recommend the FRAS and Walsh-IT. For social domain with specific adversity, we recommend the FRAS questionnaire. For social domain without specific adversity, the FRQ is recommended.

Observational Pain Assessment Instruments for Use With Nonverbal Patients at the End-of-life: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Tapp ◽  
Sara Chenacher ◽  
Ngangue Patrice Alain Gérard ◽  
Philippe Bérubé-Mercier ◽  
Celine Gelinas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement

Purpose: To review studies pertaining to the reliability and validity of observational pain assessment tools for use with nonverbal patients at the end-of-life, a field of research not documented by previous systematic reviews. Methods: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for studies from study inception to February 21, 2016 (update in May 9, 2018). Two independent reviewers screened study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Reviewers also extracted the psychometrics properties of studies of observational pain assessment instruments dedicated to a noncommunicative population in palliative care or at the end-of-life. A comprehensive quality assessment was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to derive poor, fair, good or excellent ratings for the psychometric tests reported in each study. Results: Four studies linked to 4 different tools met the inclusion criteria. Study populations included dementia, palliative care and severe illness in the context of intensive care. All the studies included in this review obtained poor COSMIN ratings overall. Conclusions: At this point, it is impossible to recommend any of the tools evaluated given the low number and quality of the studies. Other analyses and studies need to be conducted to develop, adapt, or further validate observational pain instruments for the end-of-life population, regardless of the disease.

scholarly journals 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

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review protocol using COSMIN methodology

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e036365
Author(s):  
Zheng Zhu ◽  
Weijie Xing ◽  
Lucylynn Lizarondo ◽  
Jian Peng ◽  
Yan Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionDue to the higher costs associated with advancements in cancer treatment and longer duration of cancer survivorship, increasing financial toxicity has become a great threat to survivors, caregivers and public healthcare systems. Since accurate and reproducible measures are prerequisites for robust results, choosing an acceptable measure with strong psychometric properties to assess financial toxicity is essential. However, a description of the psychometric properties of existing measures is still lacking. The aim of this study is to apply COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology to systematically review the content and structural validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of financial toxicity for cancer survivors.Methods and analysisPubMed/Medline, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to 15 November 2019. Studies that report the measurement properties of PROMs assessing financial toxicity for cancer survivors will be included. The evaluation of measurement properties, data extraction and data synthesis will be conducted according to the COSMIN methodology.Ethics and disseminationNo individual data are involved in this systematic review. The results will be disseminated to a clinical audience and policy-makers though peer-reviewed journals and conferences and will support researchers in choosing the best measure to evaluate the financial toxicity of cancer survivors.

scholarly journals Informant-based assessment instruments for dementia and their measurement properties in persons with intellectual disability: systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040920
Author(s):  
Elisabeth L Zeilinger ◽  
Sophie Komenda ◽  
Irina Zrnic ◽  
Fabian Franken ◽  
Katharina Woditschka
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Functional Impairments ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement

IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document