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 Absolute reliability and concurrent validity of hand held dynamometry and isokinetic dynamometry in the hip, knee and ankle joint: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open Medicine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 359-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Chamorro ◽  
Susan Armijo-Olivo ◽  
Carlos De la Fuente ◽  
Javiera Fuentes ◽  
Luis Javier Chirosa
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plantar Flexion ◽  
Peak Torque ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Ankle Dorsiflexion ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Intra Class Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Absolute Reliability

AbstractThe purpose of the study is to establish absolute reliability and concurrent validity between hand-held dynamometers (HHDs) and isokinetic dynamometers (IDs) in lower extremity peak torque assessment. Medline, Embase, CINAHL databases were searched for studies related to psychometric properties in muscle dynamometry. Studies considering standard error of measurement SEM (%) or limit of agreement LOA (%) expressed as percentage of the mean, were considered to establish absolute reliability while studies using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were considered to establish concurrent validity between dynamometers. In total, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The COSMIN checklist classified them between fair and poor. Using HHDs, knee extension LOA (%) was 33.59%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.91 to 43.26 and ankle plantar flexion LOA (%) was 48.87%, CI 35.19 to 62.56. Using IDs, hip adduction and extension; knee flexion and extension; and ankle dorsiflexion showed LOA (%) under 15%. Lower hip, knee, and ankle LOA (%) were obtained using an ID compared to HHD. ICC between devices ranged between 0.62, CI (0.37 to 0.87) for ankle dorsiflexion to 0.94, IC (0.91to 0.98) for hip adduction. Very high correlation were found for hip adductors and hip flexors and moderate correlations for knee flexors/extensors and ankle plantar/dorsiflexors.

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 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.

scholarly journals Design of a Tennis-Specific Agility Test (TAT) for Monitoring Tennis Players

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-250
Author(s):  
Marleen G.T. Jansen ◽  
Marije T. Elferink-Gemser ◽  
Aldo E. Hoekstra ◽  
Irene R. Faber ◽  
Barbara C. H. Huijgen
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Tennis Players ◽  
Cognitive Agility ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Pearson Correlations ◽  
Intra Class Correlation Coefficient

Abstract Agility is an important ability for tennis players. To be successful in the rallies, players must perform rapid, multidirectional movements in response to the ball and/or the position of the opponent. For a test to be representative in monitoring agility performance, it should capture a combination of the physical and cognitive agility performance. Considering that literature reports no reliable and valid sport-specific agility test for tennis, the aim of this article was to design and evaluate the measurement properties of a Tennis-specific Agility Test (TAT). To evaluate the TAT, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and feasibility were assessed. For reproducibility, a two-way mixed ANOVA was performed. Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson correlations. A total of 69 tennis players participated in this study of whom 16 competed at the international (22 ± 3.7 years, playing level (Dynamic Rating System): .8 ± .3), 43 at the national (14 ± 1.4 years, playing level: 4.6 ± 1.4), and 10 at the regional level (15 ± 0.8 years, playing level: 4.9 ± 1.1). Test-retest reliability was found to be moderate with an Intra-Class Correlation coefficient (ICC) of .74 (p < .01) and a percentual minimal detectable change (%MDC) of 6.2%. Concurrent validity was found to be moderate by comparison with a recognised agility test, the Spider Drill, which measures only the physical component (.70; p < .01), and by comparison with tennis performance for both boys (r = .67; p < .01) and girls (r = .72; p < .01). The feasibility was high with short time for preparation (five to ten minutes) and time per participant (<5 minutes). In conclusion, the TAT shows promising results for assessing sport-specific agility performance in tennis making it likely to be used in the practical setting.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse: a protocol for a systematic review of validated assessment tools

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e021948
Author(s):  
Sheila Raposo Galindo ◽  
Tatiana de Paula Santana da Silva ◽  
Manoel Henrique da Nóbrega Marinho ◽  
Carlos Eduardo de Souza Leão Ribeiro ◽  
Murilo Duarte da Costa Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Opioid Abuse ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Individual

IntroductionOpioid use patterns of individuals with non-cancer pain are influenced by the behavioural dynamics of the individual in managing and properly following the prescription. The use of assessment tools for measuring the risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse is important for health professionals who provide care to individuals with non-cancer pain. The aim of the proposed review is to analyse the psychometric properties of tools for measuring the risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse in adults with non-cancer pain.Methods and analysisThe review process will be based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments will be used to analyse the assessment tools. Two independent reviewers will perform the literature search and analysis procedures. Searches will be performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases, and the ‘snowball’ strategy will be employed. The inclusion criteria will be (1) validation studies, (2) assessment tools designed exclusively for measuring the risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse and (3) assessment tools designed for evaluation of adults with chronic non-cancer pain. The titles and abstracts of the studies retrieved from the databases will be analysed for the preselection of articles, which will be submitted to a full-text analysis to define the final sample. Divergence of opinion between two reviewers will be resolved by consulting a third reviewer.Ethics and disseminationThe review will offer an overview of assessment tools available for measuring the risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse, which is relevant to reducing the risk of deaths due to abusive consumption and for clinical management of adults with chronic non-cancer pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018081577.

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Test of Motor Impairment-Henderson Revision

1990 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine J. Riggen ◽  
Dale A. Ulrich ◽  
John C. Ozmun
Keyword(s):  
Standard Error ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Test Score ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Motor Impairment ◽  
Final Test ◽  
Motor Proficiency ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Absolute Reliability ◽  
Error Of Measurement

The reliability and concurrent validity of the Test of Motor Impairment-Henderson Revision was evaluated employing a sample of preschoolers. Absolute reliability of the final test score was established by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM). An SEM of .86 was obtained. The consistency of decisions related to motor impairment or nonimpairment was estimated by calculating the proportion of agreement index across two testing occasions and Kappa. A 90% agreement was obtained with Kappa equal to .71. Concurrent validity using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form as the criterion resulted in an 88% agreement between the two tests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document