Measures of trunk muscle strength and their measurement properties: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis of clinical measures

Althobaiti, Shouq; Rushton, Alison; Falla, Deborah; Heneghan, Nicola R

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041499

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search strategy was designed drawing on subject and methodological expertise of coauthors (NRH, AR and DF) and a specialist librarian. The full search strategy is described in the published protocol [28].…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As per the protocol [28], the COSMIN risk of bias (ROB) checklist for systematic reviews was implemented to evaluate the ROB of included studies [31]. Even though the checklist was originally designed for patient reported outcome measures, it has been recommended for adaptation and to evaluate the psychometric properties of other measures including PBOM [32].…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Practicable performance-based outcome measures of trunk muscle strength and their measurement properties: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The evaluation of muscle strength is frequently used as part of the physical examination process, with decreased trunk muscle strength reported in individuals with spinal disorders (e.g., low back pain). Access to practicable performance-based outcome measures (PBOM) to monitor patients’ progress in spinal rehabilitation is essential. Knowledge of the psychometric properties of the available practicable PBOM for trunk strength evaluation is therefore needed to inform practitioners and further research. Objective To synthesise evidence on the measurement properties of practicable measures of trunk muscle strength in adults with and without musculoskeletal pain. Methods Following a published and registered protocol [PROSPERO CRD42020167464], databases were searched from the database inception date up to 30th of June 2021. Citations and grey literature were also searched. Eligibility criteria comprised: 1) studies which examined the psychometric properties of the trunk strength outcome measures, 2) included adults ≥ 18 years, either asymptomatic or with spinal musculoskeletal pain. Non-English language studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality and synthesized the data from included studies according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results From 34 included studies, 15 different PBOMs were identified that have been investigated for reliability and validity, none evaluated responsiveness. In asymptomatic individuals, high quality evidence supports intra-rater reliability of digital-loading cells and moderate quality evidence supports the criterion validity of the hand-held dynamometer. Very low quality evidence exists for the reliability and validity estimates of testing tools among individuals with spinal pain. Conclusions Findings underpin a cautious recommendation for the use of practicable PROMs to evaluate muscle strength in individuals with spinal pain in clinical practice due to the level of evidence and the heterogeneity of the protocols used. Further high quality research to explore the psychometric properties of the practicable PBOMs with detailed methodology is now needed.

show abstract

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%