Background: Observing and analyzing movement quality (MQ) in patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) is important in the clinical reasoning of primary care physiotherapists and exercise therapists. However, there is no standardized form of assessment. Research question: which MQ domains are measured with which instruments, and which activities are relevant, appropriate and methodologically sound for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP?Methods: The study had three phases. In phase 1 we conducted a systematic review in PubMed, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus of literature published until October 2018. The selected studies measured MQ domains with instruments that enabled us to 1) compare MQ in self-paced dynamic activities of patients with NS-LBP and healthy controls, and/or 2) determine change over time of MQ in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 2 we established relevant dynamic activities to assess in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 3 we determined appropriateness and methodological qualities of the selected instruments.Results: Thirty cross-sectional and three pre-post-test studies were eligible. The instruments consisted of complex (n = 19) and simple (n = 7) instrumented motion analysis systems and standardized observational tests (n = 7). We identified three domains representative for MQ: range of motion (ROM), inter-segmental coordination, and whole-body movements. In these domains, patients with NS-LBP significantly differed from healthy controls, respectively 7/12, 12/13 and 13/20 studies. Moreover, ROM and whole-body movements significantly improved over time in patients with NS-LBP (3/3 studies). Based on phase 3, we concluded that none of the instruments are appropriate to assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP in primary care.Significance: Forward bending, lifting, and walking seem the most relevant activities to evaluate in patients with NS-LBP. However, we found no suitable instruments to measure ROM, inter-segmental coordination, or whole-body movements as determinants of MQ in these activities in daily practice. We therefore recommend such an instrument be developed.
DOCUMENT
A list of measurement instruments used in Urban Vitality research projects regarding frailty and ageing. The list is based on the research protocols of the 14 projects that were examined.Per instrument a link to https://meetinstrumentenzorg.nl/instrumenten/ is provided (if available).
MULTIFILE
Calibration of spectral imaging instruments is a prerequisite for many applications, in particular in the field of Earth observation. In this contribution we will present a novel traceability route to celebrate spectral imaging instruments, based on tunable radiance source that is referenced to a primary detector standard.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: This study aims to systematically identify items that measure commu-nicative participation from measurement instruments that measure (aspects of) communication and/or participation in children and adolescents (5–18 years old) with communication disorders, for developing an item bank. Method: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to search for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or parent reports measuring aspects of communication and/or participation in children and adolescents. The individual items of the included measurement instruments were reviewed on whether they measure communicative participation. The items were then classified into one of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for Children and Youth (World Health Organization, 2007) domains of activities and participation. Results: A total of 29 instruments were found, nine PROMs and 20 parent reports. One hundred forty-five items were identified that measure communica-tive participation. From these 145 items, 74 were retrieved from PROMs (51%), and 71 were retrieved from parent reports (49%). The majority of items were classified in ICF Domain 7, interpersonal interactions and relationships (73.8%), followed by Domain 8, major life areas (13.8%), and Domain 9, community, social, and civic life (8.3%). Only a few items were found in Domains 5 and 6, and none was found in Domains 1, 2, and 4. Conclusions: We identified 145 items potentially useful for developing an item bank addressing communicative participation in children and adolescents with communication disorders. However, item development in collaboration with the target population is needed to ensure that these items fully reflect the construct.
LINK
The use of measurement instruments has become a major issue in physical therapy, but their use in daily practice is infrequent. The aims of this case report were to develop and evaluate a plan for the systematic implementation of two measurement instruments frequently recommended in Dutch physical therapy clinical guidelines: the Patient-Specific Complaints instrument and the Six-Minute Walk Test.
DOCUMENT
Background: Due to differences in the definition of frailty, many different screening instruments have been developed. However, the predictive validity of these instruments among community-dwelling older people remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate whether combined (i.e. sequential or parallel) use of available frailty instruments improves the predictive power of dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL), mortality and hospitalization. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study with two-year followup was conducted among pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Measurements: Four combinations of two highly specific frailty instruments (Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index) and two highly sensitive instruments (Tilburg Frailty Indicator, Groningen Frailty Indicator) were investigated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for all single instruments as well as for the four combinations, sequential and parallel. Results: 2,420 individuals participated (mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 60.5% female) in our study. Sequential use increased the levels of specificity, as expected, whereas the PPV hardly increased. Parallel use increased the levels of sensitivity, although the NPV hardly increased. Conclusions: Applying two frailty instruments sequential or parallel might not be a solution for achieving better predictions of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Our results show that the combination of different screening instruments does not improve predictive validity. However, as this is one of the first studies to investigate the combined use of screening instruments, we recommend further exploration of other combinations of instruments among other study populations.
DOCUMENT
The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.
DOCUMENT
Frailty is one of the greatest challenges for healthcare professionals. The level of frailty depends on several interrelated factors and can change over time while different interventions seem to be able to influence the level of frailty. Therefore, an outcome instrument to measure frailty with sound clinimetric properties is needed. A systematic review on evaluative measures of frailty was performed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cinahl and Cochrane. The results show numerous instruments that measure the level of frailty. This article gives a clear overview of the content of these frailty instruments and describes their clinimetric properties. Frailty instruments, however, are often developed as prognostic instruments and have also been validated as such. The clinimetric properties of these instruments as evaluative outcome measures are unclear
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To determine the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of measurement instruments evaluating scapular function. Design: Systematic review of measurement properties. Literature Search: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2019. Study Selection Criteria: Studies published in Dutch, English, or German were included when they evaluated at least 1 of the measurement properties of interest. No restrictions were made regarding participants' health status. Data Synthesis: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality using the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed data. Quality of evidence was graded by measurement property for each distinctive type of measurement. Results: Thirty-one measurement instruments in 14 studies were categorized into instruments to measure scapular posture and movement, and to assess scapular dyskinesis. Quality of evidence was at most moderate for 4 instruments with respect to criterion validity. Of these, criterion validity for instruments measuring scapular protraction/retraction posture and rotation angles up to 120° of thoracohumeral elevation was sufficient. Criterion validity for instruments measuring asymmetrical scapular posture, range of motion, and the lateral scapular slide test was insufficient. Quality of evidence for measurement properties of all other instruments was graded lower. Conclusion: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for the clinical examination of scapular function. Measurement instruments to assess scapular dyskinesis are prone to misinterpretation and should therefore not be used as such.
LINK
