Outcomes evaluating quality of life and their measurement properties in early-onset scoliosis: protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionEarly-onset scoliosis (EOS) is a rare spinal deformity affecting children under the age of 10. Both the condition and its treatment have associated morbidity and can impact quality of life. Understanding this impact can be achieved by using appropriate patient-reported and/or carer-reported outcome measures. The aim of the review described in this protocol is to evaluate the evidence on measurement properties relevant to health-related quality of life outcomes in the EOS population. The focus will be on outcome measures relevant to patients undergoing treatment of EOS under the age of 10.Methods/analysisThis protocol is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, PubMed, PsychINFO and CINAHL databases will be searched using a two-stage search strategy. The first stage will identify measures of HRQoL used in EOS through screening of titles and abstracts. The second stage will assess the measurement properties of those measures identified through screening of full-text articles. The measurement properties of interest are the ‘reliability’, ‘validity’ and ‘responsiveness’ of the instrument. Only English language articles will be considered. Two reviewers will independently review the search results against the eligibility criteria, perform data extraction and assess for risk of bias, with disputes handled by a third reviewer. Data will be quantitatively pooled where possible or reported as a narrative synthesis. The summarised results for each measurement property will be rated against the criteria for good measurement properties following the COSMIN methodology. Two reviewers will assess the body of evidence for each measurement property using modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this review and the results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020219721.

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

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

Practicability of lower extremity functional performance tests and their measurement properties in elite athletes: protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionLower extremity injury (LEI) is highly prevalent and its occurrence increases the risk of future injury in athletic populations. Identifying athletes at risk of injury is the key to target injury-prevention programmes. Functional performance tests (FPT) assess an athlete’s ability to produce and accept forces during movement tasks reflective of those experienced in sport, and are used to identify deficits in physical qualities or neuromuscular control. This review aims to identify FPT which have potential to predict LEI and assess their measurement properties associated with reliability, validity, responsiveness and practicability (interpretability and feasibility).Methods/analysisThis protocol will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Methodology. The search strategy has two stages: stage 1 will identify lower limb FPT used in athletic populations; and stage 2 will assess the measurement properties of the identified FPT. A sensitive search strategy will use MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and SPORTdiscus databases; from inception to June 2020. Hand searching reference lists, key journals and grey literature will be completed. One reviewer will complete search 1 and data extraction. Two reviewers will complete the search, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment for search 2. Evidence will be pooled or summarised by individual measurement property by each individual study and grouped by FPT. Meta-analysis using a random effects model with subgroup analysis will be performed where possible. Pooled or summarised results for each FPT in relation to each measurement property will be rated against the criteria for good measurement properties. Two reviewers will assess the overall body of evidence per measurement property per FPT using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. This review will enable clinicians to make an informed choice when selecting FPT.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this review and the results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and submitted for conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188932.

Measurement properties of translated versions of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: A systematic review

Purpose: To summarise measurement properties of translated versions of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and to assess their methodological quality. Methods: Relevant studies testing measurement properties of translated versions of the SPADI in non-specific shoulder pain participants were included from 11 databases (August 2020). Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed individual measurement property risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist as very good, adequate, doubtful or inadequate. For each measurement property results were pooled and rated sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent. Synthesised evidence was graded as high, moderate, low or very low (GRADE approach). Results: Thirty-four studies (21 languages and 26 different versions) were included from 4402 articles. A total of 141 measurement properties were reported with 60 rated as very good or adequate. These included; internal consistency (19), test-retest reliability (4), construct validity (6), structural validity (10), measurement error (5), responsiveness (9), and cross-cultural validity (2). Comprehensibility was adequate in the Chinese, German, Nepali, Spanish and Urdu versions. Only the Danish, Dutch and Nepali versions confirmed all, or all but one, of their measurement properties with sound methodology. Pooled results of all measurement properties except structural validity were rated as sufficient. Quality of evidence was graded moderate to high with downgrading due to inconsistent results. Conclusion: Overall evidence suggests the SPADI is valid, reliable and responsive in translated form but less than half the measurement properties tested were of adequate quality. Further testing is required in many languages particularly in; test-retest reliability, measurement error and construct validity.

Measurement Properties of the Craniocervical Flexion Test: A Systematic Review

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

Measurement properties of oral health assessments for non-dental healthcare professionals in older people: a systematic review

Background Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.