The Reliability of the Microsoft Kinect and Ambulatory Sensor-Based Motion Tracking Devices to Measure Shoulder Range-of-Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Advancements in motion sensing technology can potentially allow clinicians to make more accurate range-of-motion (ROM) measurements and informed decisions regarding patient management. The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the literature on the reliability of the Kinect, inertial sensors, smartphone applications and digital inclinometers/goniometers to measure shoulder ROM. Eleven databases were screened (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, SPORTSDiscus, Compendex, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, Proquest Science and Technology, Scopus, and PubMed). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Reliability assessment used intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the criteria from Swinkels et al. (2005). Thirty-two studies were included. A total of 24 studies scored “adequate” and 2 scored “very good” for the reliability standards. Only one study scored “very good” and just over half of the studies (18/32) scored “adequate” for the measurement error standards. Good intra-rater reliability (ICC > 0.85) and inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.80) was demonstrated with the Kinect, smartphone applications and digital inclinometers. Overall, the Kinect and ambulatory sensor-based human motion tracking devices demonstrate moderate–good levels of intra- and inter-rater reliability to measure shoulder ROM. Future reliability studies should focus on improving study design with larger sample sizes and recommended time intervals between repeated measurements.

Handover of Critical Patients in Urgent Care and Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review of Validated Assessment Tools

The emergency handover of critical patients is used to describe the moment when responsibility for the care of a patient is transferred from one critical patient care healthcare team to another, requiring the accurate delivery of information. However, the literature provides few validated assessment tools for the transfer of critical patients in urgent care and emergency settings. To identify the available evaluation tools that assess the handover of critical patients in urgent and emergency care settings in addition to evaluations of their psychometric properties, a systematic review was carried out using PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, Web of Science (WoS), and PsycINFO, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The quality of the studies was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Finally, eight articles were identified, of which only three included validated tools for evaluating the handover of critical patients in emergency care. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were the most studied psychometric properties. Three studies evaluated error and reliability, criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and sensitivity. None of them considered cross-cultural adaptation or the translation process. This systematic psychometric review shows the existing ambiguities in the handover of critically ill patients and the scarcity of validated evaluation tools. For all of these reasons, we consider it necessary to further investigate urgent care and emergency handover settings through the design and validation of an assessment tool.

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

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.

Assessing food and nutrition literacy in children and adolescents: a systematic review of existing tools

Objective: Food literacy (FL) and nutrition literacy (NL) are concepts that can help individuals to navigate the current food environment. Building these skills and knowledge at a young age is important for skill retention, confidence in food practices and supporting lifelong healthy eating habits. The objectives of this systematic review were to: (i) identify existing tools that measure FL and NL among children and/or adolescents and (ii) describe the psychometric properties. Design: A 4-phase protocol was used to systematically retrieve articles. The search was performed in May 2021. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted, and a narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Setting: Six databases were searched to identify current tools. Participants: Children (2–12 years) and adolescents (13–18 years) participated in this study. Results: Twelve tools were identified. Three tools measured FL, 1 tool measured NL, 4 tools measured both FL and NL, and 4 tools measured subareas of NL—more specifically, critical NL, food label and menu board literacy. Most tools were self-reported, developed based on a theoretical framework and assessed some components of validity and/or reliability for a specific age and ethnic group. The majority of tools targeted older children and adolescents (9–18 years of age), and one tool targeted preschoolers (3–6 years of age). Conclusions: Most widely used definitions of FL and NL do not acknowledge life-stage specific criterion. Continued efforts are needed to develop a comprehensive definition and framework of FL and NL appropriate for children, which will help inform future assessment tools.

Patient Reported Experience Measures in outpatient rheumatology care: a systematic review

Objectives There is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in healthcare. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology. Methods Six databases were systematically searched from inception to December 14, 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Included were articles in English which described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient Rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties. Results The search yielded 3809 publications and six studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for ‘doubtful’ or “inadequate” quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a “sufficient” rating for content validity and the remainder fulfilled “inconsistent” ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one to four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties. Conclusion Methodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalisability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in Rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.

Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist

ObjectivesTo identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence.Design(1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included.Results51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated ‘inadequate’ for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated ‘B’ (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation).ConclusionJoint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.

COSMIN Checklist for Systematic Reviews of the Hospital Preparedness Instruments in Biological Events

Background and PurposeThe purpose of this research was to evaluate the psychometric properties of hospital preparedness instruments in biological events. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements Instruments (COSMIN) checklist has been used to design the appropriate hospital preparedness instruments in these events.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest, Google Scholar for relevant literature until December 31, 2018, and the data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the identified studies was assessed per measurement property according to the COSMIN checklist. Twenty studies that met the inclusion criteria were included.ResultsThe result showed that none of the evaluated checklists and instruments included all dimensions required for an appropriate hospital preparedness evaluation. The results revealed that none of the included studies reported adequate information on all the measurement properties of the instruments studied as per the COSMIN criteria.ConclusionsThe information on their measurement properties was lacking. Thus, there was a need for evaluating measurement. However, a vital necessity is felt for developing an instrument with acceptable psychometric properties for measuring hospital preparedness in biological events. The present study provided improved clarity about the quality of currently available hospital preparedness instruments in the biological event and the results of this systematic review could be used to prepare a standardized instrument to evaluate hospital preparedness in biological disaster.

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

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.

Instruments to assess Evidence-Based Practice among healthcare professionals: a systematic review

The study makes it possible to select the most appropriate instruments to evaluate the use of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) among health professionals. The objective of this study was to assess the measurement properties, summarize and describe the instruments that evaluate the use of EBP in health professionals, currently available through the update of the systematic review. The study was conducted and reported according to recommendations of the PRISMA checklist. A systematic search was conducted in the databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC. In addition, three groups of search terms: EBP terms; evaluation; cross-cultural adaptation and measurement proprieties. They included studies that showed assessment tools of EBP in healthcare workers in general publication of full-text scientific articles, which tested the measurement properties and publication of an article in English. Searches included published studies from 2006 until July 2020. Evaluation of the methodological quality of the studies was conducted according to the COSMIN initiative. 92 studies were included. Forty new instruments have been identified to assess EBP. From these, most were developed for nursing professionals and physiotherapists. More than 48% of studies have American and Australian English as their native language. Only 28% of the studies included students in the samples. Reliability was considered appropriate (sufficient) in 76% of the instruments. The COSMIN checklist classified 7 (seven) instruments as being suitable for use in the target audience. However, Fresno Test remains the most appropriate instrument for assessing the use of EBP in healthcare professionals. 40 new instruments that assess EBP have been identified. Most are consistent and reliable for measuring the use of EBP in healthcare professionals. The Fresno Test, in a list of seven reliable and valid instruments for analysis, remains the most used and the one that most assesses the domains of EBP.

Measures of Facilitator Competent Adherence Used in Parenting Programs and Their Psychometric Properties: A Systematic Review

Implementation fidelity is a critical component of intervention science, which aims to understand how interventions unfold in practice to improve outcomes. A key element of fidelity is facilitator competent adherence—the extent to which a program is delivered as prescribed with the specified level of quality. We conducted a two-part systematic review examining these aspects in parenting programs aiming to reduce child behavior problems and maltreatment. Part One reviews measures of facilitator competent adherence and Part Two examines the psychometric properties of the observational measures found. Searches identified 9153 articles from electronic databases, citation tracking, and expert input. After screening using pre-specified criteria, 156 (Part One) and 41 (Part Two) articles remained. In Part One, measure, facilitator, and intervention characteristics were extracted and synthesized from 65 measures. Most measures were observational, used by facilitators and researchers, and employed Likert-scale ratings. In Part Two, evidence on the reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater, intra-rater, test–retest) and validity (content, construct, convergent/divergent, criterion) of 30 observational measures identified from Part One was synthesized and evaluated. An adapted COSMIN checklist was used to assess study and measure quality. We found most studies to be of reasonably high quality. This is the first review to summarize and critically appraise measures of facilitator competent adherence used in the parenting program literature and establish their psychometric properties. The findings underscore the need to advance research on measures of facilitator competent adherence; reliable, valid, and high-quality implementation measures allow for evidence-based decisions regarding the delivery and scale-up of parenting programs. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020167872.