AIM To examine which instruments used to assess participation of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) or cerebral palsy (CP) align with attendance and/or involvement constructs of participation; and to systematically review measurement properties of these instruments in children with ABI or CP, to guide instrument selection. METHOD Five databases were searched. Instruments that quantified ‘attendance’ and/or ‘involvement’ aspects of participation according to the family of participation-related constructs were selected. Data on measurement properties were extracted and methodological quality of the studies assessed. RESULTS Thirty-seven instruments were used to assess participation in children with ABI or CP. Of those, 12 measured attendance and/or involvement. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of eight of these instruments were examined in 14 studies with children with ABI or CP. Sufficient measurement properties were reported for most of the measures, but no instrument had been assessed on all relevant properties. Moreover, most psychometric studies have marked methodological limitations. INTERPRETATION Instruments to assess participation of children with ABI or CP should be selected carefully, as many available measures do not align with attendance and/or involvement. Evidence for measurement properties is limited, mainly caused by low methodological study quality. Future studies should follow recommended methodological guidelines.
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
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.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) has been translated into different languages, and several studies on its measurement properties have been done. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties, when possible, of all language versions of the QBPDS by systematically reviewing the methodological quality and results of the available studies. METHOD: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles with the key words "Quebec," "back," "pain," and "disability" in combination with a methodological search filter for finding studies on measurement properties concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of the QBPDS in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out by the reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for both the original language version of the QBPDS in English and French and all translated versions. The results of the measurement properties were rated based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in identification of 1,436 publications, and 27 articles were included in the systematic review. There was limited-to-moderate evidence of good reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QBPDS for the different language versions, but for no language version was evidence available for all measurement properties. CONCLUSION: For research and clinical practice, caution is advised when using the QBPDS to measure disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Strong evidence is lacking on all measurement properties for each language version of the QBPDS.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the validity and reliability of existing measurement instruments for quantifying head and neck lymphedema. Methods: Four databases were searched on January 31st, 2022. The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklists were used for the risk of bias (ROB) assessment. Results: Out of 3362 unique records, eight studies examined the reliability and validity of five measurement instruments of which one patient reported outcome. The Patterson scale for internal lymphedema and the patient reported head and neck external lymphedema and fibrosis (LIDS-H&N) demonstrated validity and reliability. For external lymphedema, none of the instruments had good reliability for all measuring points. Conclusion: There is a lack of sufficiently reliable and valid measurement instruments for external head and neck lymphedema. The Patterson scale and the patient reported LIDS-H&N seem reliable for clinical practice and research.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To systematically review and critically appraise the literature on measurement properties of cardiopulmonary exercise test protocols for measuring aerobic capacity, VO2max, in persons after stroke. Data sources: PubMed, Embase and Cinahl were searched from inception up to 15 June 2016. A total of 9 studies were identified reporting on 9 different cardiopulmonary exercise test protocols. Study selection: VO2max measured with cardiopulmonary exercise test and open spirometry was the construct of interest. The target population was adult persons after stroke. We included all studies that evaluated reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, content validity, hypothesis testing and/ or responsiveness of cardiopulmonary exercise test protocols. Data extraction: Two researchers independently screened the literature, assessed methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and extracted data on measurement properties of cardiopulmonary exercise test protocols. Data synthesis: Most studies reported on only one measurement property. Best-evidence synthesis was derived taking into account the methodological quality of the studies, the results and the consistency of the results. Conclusion: No judgement could be made on which protocol is “best” for measuring VO2max in persons after stroke due to lack of high-quality studies on the measurement properties of the cardiopulmonary exercise test.
DOCUMENT
Sinds 2015 is Den Haag als eerste Nederlandse gemeente lid van het Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie. Onderdeel van dit lidmaatschap is het periodiek evalueren van de seniorvriendelijkheid van de stad. Echter, nergens ter wereld bleek een instrument te bestaan dat dit op een valide wijze kan doen. Vanuit de gemeente Den Haag volgde de opdracht om zo’n instrument te maken.
MULTIFILE
The World Health Organization engages cities and communities all over the world in becoming age-friendly. There is a need for assessing the age-friendliness of cities and communities by means of a transparently constructed and validated tool which measures the construct as a whole. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire measuring age-friendliness, providing full transparency and reproducibility. The development and validation of the Age Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire (AFCCQ) followed the criteria of the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Four phases were followed: (1) development of the conceptual model, themes and items; (2) initial (qualitative) validation; (3) psychometric validation, and (4) translating the instrument using the forward-backward translation method. This rigorous process of development and validation resulted in a valid, psychometrically sound, comprehensive 23-item questionnaire. This questionnaire can be used to measure older people’s experiences regarding the eight domains of the WHO Age-Friendly Cities model, and an additional financial domain. The AFCCQ allows practitioners and researchers to capture the age-friendliness of a city or community in a numerical fashion, which helps monitor the age-friendliness and the potential impact of policies or social programmes. The AFCCQ was created in Dutch and translated into British-English. CC-BY Original article: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186867 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers "Age-Friendly Cities & Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives") https://www.dehaagsehogeschool.nl/onderzoek/lectoraten/details/urban-ageing#over-het-lectoraat Extra: Vragenlijst bijlage / Questionnaire attachement
MULTIFILE
Objective: To evaluate psychometrics of wearable devices measuring physical activity (PA) in ambulant children with gait abnormalities due to neuromuscular conditions. Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus in March 2023. Study Selection: We included studies if (1) participants were ambulatory children (2-19y) with gait abnormalities, (2) reliability and validity were analyzed, and (3) peer-reviewed studies in the English language and full-text were available. We excluded studies of children with primarily visual conditions, behavioral diagnoses, or primarily cognitive disability. We performed independent screening and inclusion, data extraction, assessment of the data, and grading of results with 2 researchers. Data Extraction: Our report follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We assessed methodological quality with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health measurement instruments. We extracted data on reported reliability, measurement error, and validity. We performed meta-analyses for reliability and validity coefficient values. Data Synthesis: Of 6911 studies, we included 26 with 1064 participants for meta-analysis. Results showed that wearables measuring PA in children with abnormal gait have high to very high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]+, test-retest reliability=0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.89; I2=88.57%; ICC+, interdevice reliability=0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; I2=71.01%) and moderate to high validity in a standardized setting (r+, construct validity=0.63; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; I2=99.97%; r+, criterion validity=0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; I2=98.70%; r+, criterion validity cutoff point based=0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.80; I2=87.02%). The methodological quality of all studies included in the meta-analysis was moderate. Conclusions: There was high to very high reliability and moderate to high validity for wearables measuring PA in children with abnormal gait, primarily due to neurological conditions. Clinicians should be aware that several moderating factors can influence an assessment.
DOCUMENT
