Inter- and intrarater reliability of two proprioception tests using clinical applicable measurement tools in subjects with and without knee osteoarthritis

Baert, Isabel; Lluch, Enrique; Struyf, Thomas; Peeters, Greta; Oosterwijck, Sophie Van; Tuynman, Jurriaan B.; Rufai, Salim; Struyf, Filip

doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2017.11.011

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies will be included if they meet the following criteria: Participants: Adolescents (≥10 years of age) and adults who are healthy as well as those with anterior cruciate ligament injury managed with or without reconstruction. Construct: One or more specific methods measuring joint proprioception such as active or passive JPS (ipsilateral or contralateral matching,19 20 verbal identification of joint position,23 and identifying location of joint motion using contralateral limb),23 TTDPM (low21 or high velocity30), force sense,19 21 force perception,23 velocity sense,21 AMEDA24 or psychophysical threshold methods25 designed for the knee. Equipment: Any equipment that is readily available or customised for the purpose of quantifying knee joint proprioception (e.g. video cameras, two-dimensional/three-dimensional motion analysis system, electro-goniometer, isokinetic dynamometer, etc.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Construct: One or more specific methods measuring joint proprioception such as active or passive JPS (ipsilateral or contralateral matching,19 20 verbal identification of joint position,23 and identifying location of joint motion using contralateral limb),23 TTDPM (low21 or high velocity30), force sense,19 21 force perception,23 velocity sense,21 AMEDA24 or psychophysical threshold methods25 designed for the knee.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common methods strive to determine joint position sense (JPS) and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) 18. JPS typically requires the attempted matching of a target knee joint angle either ipsilaterally or contralaterally using an active and/or a passive movement 19 20. Test outcome is the difference in degrees between the target angle and the attempted reproduction angle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other tests targeting proprioception such as force sense (the ability to accurately reproduce forces and/or hold a force steadily for a brief period [e.g. 5 s]),19 21 22 force perception/load identification (the ability to differentiate between different loads/weights),23 velocity sense (the ability to actively reproduce the velocity of a passive movement),21 active movement extent discrimination (AMEDA, the ability to discriminate between two or more active movements of different ranges of motion)24 or psychophysical threshold methods (the ability to detect and discriminate between different joint positions following passive movements)25 are also reported. However, it appears important to differentiate tests based on the specific targeted sense of proprioception due to the reported lack of correlation between knee position sense, motion sense and force sense 26.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Psychometric properties of knee proprioception tests targeting healthy individuals and those with anterior cruciate ligament injury managed with or without reconstruction: a systematic review protocol

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury affects knee proprioception and sensorimotor control and might contribute to an increased risk of a second ACL injury and secondary knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, there is a growing need for valid, reliable and responsive knee proprioception tests. No previous study has comprehensively reviewed all the relevant psychometric properties (PMPs) of these tests together. The aim of this review protocol is to narrate the steps involved in synthesising the evidence for the PMPs of specific knee proprioception tests among individuals with an ACL injury and knee-healthy controls.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses will be followed to report the review. A combination of four conceptual groups of terms—(1) construct (knee proprioception), (2) target population (healthy individuals and those with an ACL injury managed conservatively or with a surgical reconstruction), (3) measurement instrument (specific knee proprioception tests) and (4) PMPs (reliability, validity and responsiveness)—will be used for electronic databases search. PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ProQuest will be searched from their inception to November 2018. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text articles, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment using the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist for the eligible studies. A narrative synthesis of the findings and a meta-analysis will be attempted as appropriate. Each PMP of knee proprioception tests will be classified as ‘sufficient’, ‘indeterminate’ or ‘insufficient’. The overall level of evidence will be ascertained using an established set of criteria.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval or patient consent is not required for a systematic review. The review findings will be submitted as a series of manuscripts for peer-review and publication in scientific journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108014.

show abstract

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychometric properties of knee proprioception tests targeting healthy individuals and those with anterior cruciate ligament injury managed with or without reconstruction: a systematic review protocol

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knee proprioception has been commonly measured using joint position sense tasks for a number of populations of patients including Anterior Cruciate Ligament injury, knee arthroplasty and osteoarthritis, to name a few[ 14 , 15 ]. However, no recent studies have examined joint position sense of the lower extremity for patients with T2DM or for DPN.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrate proprioceptive deficit in the knee

Ettinger¹,

Boucher²,

Simonovich³

2018

WJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo investigate proprioceptive discrepancies in the lower extremity in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).METHODSIn this cross-sectional study, a total of 46 older persons were divided into a T2DM group (n = 23) and a control group who did not have T2DM (n = 23). Participants were given a brief warm up with stretching exercises. Diabetic neuropathy scores were collected prior to proprioceptive testing. For proprioceptive testing, participants performed leg extensions to randomized target positions of 15°, 30°, 45, 60° degrees of elevation in the sagittal plane, each target was repeated a total of four times. Subjects were guided to target positions in the absence of visual feedback via auditory cues from a custom JPS application. When the participant entered the target position, they memorized the location of their limb in space and subsequently attempted to re-locate this position in space. Proprioceptive errors were measured from the target positioned, target remembered, target repositioned protocol.RESULTSProprioceptive accuracy was lower in the diabetic group at all levels of target angle than the control group (P < 0.05). The diabetic group had 46% greater inaccuracy than the control group at all levels of target position. Diabetics also reported greater neuropathy scores than controls in the past 12 mo P < 0.01.CONCLUSIONDeficits in lower limb localization and greater diabetic neuropathy scores were identified in this study. Our findings may be associated with deafferentation as peripheral neuropathy is a common complication with the disease. These findings may help to explain the declining balance function in the older persons with T2DM which is also commonly reported.

show abstract

Preoperative glycaemic control, number of pain locations, structural knee damage, self‐reported central sensitisation, satisfaction and personal control are predictive of 1‐year postoperative pain, and change in pain from pre‐ to 1‐year posttotal knee arthroplasty

Vervullens,

Meert,

Smeets

et al. 2024

Knee surg. sports traumatol. arthrosc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this study was to identify preoperative predictors for 1‐year posttotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) pain and pre‐ to post‐TKA pain difference in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients.MethodsFrom March 2018 to July 2023, this prospective longitudinal cohort study enrolled KOA patients awaiting TKA from four hospitals in Belgium and the Netherlands. Different biopsychosocial predictors were assessed preoperatively by questionnaires and physical examinations (input variables). The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale pain was used to measure pain intensity. The absolute KOOS subscale pain score 1‐year post‐TKA and the difference score (ΔKOOS = 1‐year postoperative − preoperative) were used as primary outcome measures (output variables). Two multivariable linear regression analyses were performed.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty‐three participants were included after multiple imputation. Worse absolute KOOS subscale pain scores 1‐year post‐TKA and negative or closer to zero ΔKOOS subscale pain scores were predicted by self‐reported central sensitisation, lower KOA grade and preoperative satisfaction, and higher glycated haemoglobin, number of pain locations and personal control (adjusted R2 = 0.25). Additional predictors of negative or closer to zero ΔKOOS subscale pain scores were being self‐employed, higher preoperative pain and function (adjusted R2 = 0.37).ConclusionThis study reports different biopsychosocial predictors for both outcomes that have filtered out other potential predictors and provide value for future studies on developing risk assessment tools for the prediction of chronic TKA pain.Protocol RegistrationThe protocol is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05380648) on 13 May 2022.Level of EvidenceLevel II.

show abstract

Inter- and intrarater reliability of two proprioception tests using clinical applicable measurement tools in subjects with and without knee osteoarthritis

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

Psychometric properties of knee proprioception tests targeting healthy individuals and those with anterior cruciate ligament injury managed with or without reconstruction: a systematic review protocol

Psychometric properties of knee proprioception tests targeting healthy individuals and those with anterior cruciate ligament injury managed with or without reconstruction: a systematic review protocol

Patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrate proprioceptive deficit in the knee

Preoperative glycaemic control, number of pain locations, structural knee damage, self‐reported central sensitisation, satisfaction and personal control are predictive of 1‐year postoperative pain, and change in pain from pre‐ to 1‐year posttotal knee arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About