scholarly journals The diagnostic accuracy of headache measurement instruments: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms

Cephalalgia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 1313-1332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedwig A van der Meer ◽  
Corine M Visscher ◽  
Tom Vredeveld ◽  
Maria WG Nijhuis van der Sanden ◽  
Raoul HH Engelbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Moderate Level ◽  
Musculoskeletal Symptoms ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Type Headache

Aim To systematically review the available literature on the diagnostic accuracy of questionnaires and measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms. Design Articles were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) was established for measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in an adult population. The databases searched were PubMed (1966–2018), Cochrane (1898–2018) and Cinahl (1988–2018). Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for criterion validity. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were applied to establish the level of evidence per measurement instrument. Results From 3450 articles identified, 31 articles were included in this review. Eleven measurement instruments for migraine were identified, of which the ID-Migraine is recommended with a moderate level of evidence and a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.89) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72–0.78). Six measurement instruments examined both migraine and tension-type headache and only the Headache Screening Questionnaire – Dutch version has a moderate level of evidence with a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.55–0.80) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.77–0.96) for migraine, and a sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21–0.54) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–0.92) for tension-type headache. For cervicogenic headache, only the cervical flexion rotation test was identified and had a very low level of evidence with a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.72–0.94) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.91). Discussion The current review is the first to establish an overview of the diagnostic accuracy of measurement instruments for headaches associated with musculoskeletal factors. However, as most measurement instruments were validated in one study, pooling was not always possible. Risk of bias was a serious problem for most studies, decreasing the level of evidence. More research is needed to enhance the level of evidence for existing measurement instruments for multiple headaches.

scholarly journals Absolute Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Hand-Held Dynamometry in Shoulder Rotator Strength Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (17) ◽  
pp. 9293
Author(s):  
Claudio Chamorro ◽  
Miguel Arancibia ◽  
Benjamín Trigo ◽  
Leónidas Arias-Poblete ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Strength Assessment ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Intra Class Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Absolute Reliability

The purpose of this study is to establish the absolute reliability between hand-held dynamometers (HHDs) and concurrent validity between HHDs and isokinetic dynamometers (IDs) in shoulder rotator strength assessment. The Medline, CINAHL, and Central databases were searched for relevant studies up to July 2020. Absolute reliability was determined by test–retest studies presenting standard error of measurement (SEM%) and/or minimal detectable change (MDC%) expressed as percentage of the mean. Studies considering intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between IDs and HHDs were considered for concurrent validity. The risk of bias and the methodological quality were evaluated according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Shoulder internal rotator strength assessment MDC% was 0.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.21 to 3.66, while shoulder external rotators MDC% was 3.29%, CI −2.69 to 9.27. ICC between devices was 0.94, CI (0.91 to 0.96) for shoulder internal rotators and 0.92, IC (0.88 to 0.97) for shoulder external rotators. Very high correlation was found for shoulder rotator torque assessment between HHDs and IDs. The COSMIN checklist classified the selected studies as adequate and inadequate.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of manual therapy in patients with tension-type headache. A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Danilo Harudy Kamonseki ◽  
Erika Plonczynski Lopes ◽  
Hedwig Aleida van der Meer ◽  
Letícia Bojikian Calixtre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Type Headache

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of psychological factors in children with migraine and tension-type headache

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
U Balottin ◽  
P Fusar Poli ◽  
C Termine ◽  
S Molteni ◽  
G Spada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Factors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Type Headache

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 Misperception of Visual Verticality in Patients with Primary Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 664
Author(s):  
Esteban Obrero-Gaitán ◽  
María Manrique-Navarro ◽  
Miguel Ángel Lérida-Ortega ◽  
Daniel Rodríguez-Almagro ◽  
María Catalina Osuna-Pérez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Headache ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Headache Disorders ◽  
Primary Headache Disorders ◽  
Visual Vertical ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Type Headache

Migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) are the two most prevalent primary headache disorders (PHDs) that may involve visual and vestibular impairments, neck pain, and postural unsteadiness. The perception of visual verticality (VV) has been studied in patients diagnosed with PHD to assess balance disorders showing varying findings. Our study aimed to assess the VV perception in patients diagnosed with PHD in comparison to healthy controls. A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out in PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, WOS, CINAHL, and SciELO. The Cohen standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to estimate the differences between exposed and healthy controls. Seven studies with 816 participants were included. The quality of included studies, according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), was moderate (mean score of 5.2). Patients diagnosed with PHD showed a moderate misperception of VV as assessed with the subjective visual vertical (SVV) test (SMD = 0.530; 95% CI = 0.225, 0.836; p < 0.001). Specifically, a misperception of the SVV was found in patients with migraine (SMD = 0.369; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.638; p = 0.007) and with TTH (SMD = 1.122; 95% CI = 0.540, 1.704; p < 0.001). This review shows a misperception of VV in patients with migraine and TTH when assessed with the SVV test, being higher in patients with TTH, although the THH sample size was low.

scholarly journals The epidemiology of headaches among patients with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bereket Duko ◽  
Mohammed Ayalew ◽  
Alemayehu Toma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Epidemiologic Evidence ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Type Headache ◽  
Patients With Epilepsy

Abstract Background Headache is the symptom of pain in the face, head or neck that causes disability in most people with medical and neurological disorders. It frequently co-occurs with most chronic diseases such as epilepsy and significantly impacts the quality of life. However, epidemiologic data from different studies showed different rates of prevalence. Therefore, we conducted this review to summarize the available epidemiologic evidence on the topic and formulate recommendations for future research and clinical practice. Methods We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We systematically searched the literature using popular databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Psych-INFO, and SCOPUS. We further scanned the reference lists of the eligible studies to supplement our electronic search. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 (CMA 3.0) was used to conduct a meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed and Cochran’s Q- and the I2- test were used to assess the source of heterogeneity. The funnel plot and Egger’s regression tests were used to assess potential publication bias. Results A total of 17 studies conducted both in developed and developing countries including 5564 study participants were combined in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimated prevalence of headache among patients with epilepsy was 48.4%. The pooled estimated prevalence of Inter-Ictal headache (IIH) (42.2%) and Postictal headache (PIH) (43.1%) were higher when compared to tension-type headache (TTH) (26.2%), migraine with aura (26.0%) and migraine without aura (10.4%). The pooled prevalence of headache was 50.6% and 49.5% for developed and developing countries respectively. The pooled prevalence of headache among patients with epilepsy was considerably higher among females (63.0%) when compared to males (33.3%). Moreover, the pooled estimated prevalence of headache among patients with epilepsy was ranging from 46.0% to 52.2% in a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Conclusion The pooled estimated prevalence of headache among patients with epilepsy was considerably high (48.4%). Screening and appropriate management of headaches among patients with epilepsy are warranted.

Systematic review of measurement properties of self-reported instruments for evaluating therapeutic communication

2020 ◽  
pp. 019394592097015
Author(s):  
Genoveva Granados-Gámez ◽  
Isabel María Sáez-Ruiz ◽  
Verónica V. Márquez-Hernández ◽  
José Luis Ybarra-Sagarduy ◽  
Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interpersonal Communication ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measuring Instruments ◽  
Relational Communication ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Therapeutic Communication ◽  
Patient Centered

A systematic review was carried out to examine measurement tools of therapeutic relational communication, using an electronic search of the following databases: PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, CiberIndex, Scielo and Scopus. The project followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and the protocol recommended by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) panel. Thirteen instruments were included in the review. and their measurement properties were tested. The most common communication elements found in the measuring instruments were: empathy, respect, listening, contact, communicative competence, communication quality, and communication skills. Studies that used a theoretical foundation were based on patient-centered humanistic models. Empathy, respect, controlled contact, and other basic elements of interpersonal communication were most commonly found among the measuring regents. In conclusion, this review analyzed the theoretical foundations of the components of instruments used to measure therapeutic relational communication in the nursing field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document