Zoekresultaten

Validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy

Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. Methods Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0–12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months. Results In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10–4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11–12.98) for the highrisk group. Conclusion The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (�50) is recommended.

Does training improve perceived comprehensibility, difficulty and content validity of the Portuguese Scored PG-SGA?

Validity of three accelerometers to investigate lying, sitting, standing and walking

BACKGROUND: Hospital stays are associated with high levels of sedentary behavior and physical inactivity. To objectively investigate physical behavior of hospitalized patients, these is a need for valid measurement instruments. The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of three accelerometers to measure lying, sitting, standing and walking. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in a university hospital. Participants carried out several mobility tasks according to a structured protocol while wearing three accelerometers (ActiGraph GT9X Link, Activ8 Professional and Dynaport MoveMonitor). The participants were guided through the protocol by a test leader and were recorded on video to serve as reference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were determined for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking. RESULTS: In total 12 subjects were included with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 21.5) years and a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m2 (SD 2.4). The ActiGraph GT9X Link showed an excellent sensitivity (90%) and PPV (98%) for walking, but a poor sensitivity for sitting and standing (57% and 53%), and a poor PPV (43%) for sitting. The Activ8 Professional showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting and walking (95% and 93%), excellent PPV (98%) for walking, but no sensitivity (0%) and PPV (0%) for lying. The Dynaport MoveMonitor showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting (94%), excellent PPV for lying and walking (100% and 99%), but a poor sensitivity (13%) and PPV (19%) for standing. CONCLUSIONS: The validity outcomes for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking vary between the investigated accelerometers. All three accelerometers scored good to excellent in identifying walking. None of the accelerometers were able to identify all categories validly.

Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers

Background: Activity trackers can potentially stimulate users to increase their physical activity behavior. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers for measuring step count in both laboratory and free-living conditions.Method: Healthy adult volunteers (n = 33) walked twice on a treadmill (4.8 km/h) for 30 min while wearing ten different activity trackers (i.e. Lumoback, Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up, Nike+ Fuelband SE, Misfit Shine, Withings Pulse, Fitbit Zip, Omron HJ-203, Yamax Digiwalker SW-200 and Moves mobile application). In free-living conditions, 56 volunteers wore the same activity trackers for one working day. Test-retest reliability was analyzed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).Validity was evaluated by comparing each tracker with the gold standard (Optogait system for laboratory and ActivPAL for free-living conditions), using paired samples t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors, correlations and Bland-Altman plots.Results: Test-retest analysis revealed high reliability for most trackers except for the Omron (ICC .14), Moves app (ICC .37) and Nike+ Fuelband (ICC .53). The mean absolute percentage errors of the trackers in laboratory and free-living conditions respectively, were: Lumoback (−0.2, −0.4), Fibit Flex (−5.7, 3.7), Jawbone Up (−1.0, 1.4), Nike+ Fuelband (−18, −24), Misfit Shine (0.2, 1.1), Withings Pulse (−0.5, −7.9), Fitbit Zip (−0.3, 1.2), Omron (2.5, −0.4), Digiwalker (−1.2, −5.9), and Moves app (9.6, −37.6). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the limits of agreement varied from 46 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 2422 steps (Nike+ Fuelband) in the laboratory condition, and 866 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 5150 steps (Moves app) in the free-living condition.Conclusion: The reliability and validity of most trackers for measuring step count is good. The Fitbit Zip is the most valid whereas the reliability and validity of the Nike+ Fuelband is low.

Validity and Reproducibility of a New Treadmill Protocol: The Fitkids Treadmill Test

Validity and Reproducibility of a New Treadmill Protocol: The Fitkids Treadmill Test. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 2241–2247, 2015. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the validity and reproducibility of a new treadmill protocol in healthy children and adolescents: the Fitkids Treadmill Test (FTT). Methods: Sixty-eight healthy children and adolescents (6–18 yr) were randomly divided into a validity group (14 boys and 20 girls; mean T SD age, 12.9 T 3.6 yr) that performed the FTT and Bruce protocol, both with respiratory gas analysis within 2 wk, and a reproducibility group (19 boys and 15 girls; mean T SD age, 13.5 T 3.5 yr) that performed the FTT twice within 2 wk. A subgroup of 21 participants within the reproducibility group performed both FTT with respiratory gas analysis. Time to exhaustion (TTE) was the main outcome of the FTT. Results: V˙ O2peak measured during the FTT showed excellent correlation with V˙ O2peak measured during the Bruce protocol (r = 0.90; P G 0.01). Backward multiple regression analysis provided the following prediction equations for V˙ O2peak (LIminj1) for boys and girls, respectively: V˙ O2peak FTT ¼ j0:748 þ ð0:117 TTEFTTÞ þ ð0:032 bodymassÞ þ 0:263, and V˙ O2peak FTT ¼ j0:748 þ ð0:117 TTEFTTÞ þ ð0:032 bodymassÞ [R2 ¼ 0:935; SEE ¼ 0:256LI min j1]. Cross-validation of the regression model showed an R2 value of 0.76. Reliability statistics for the FTT showed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.985 (95% confidence interval, 0.971–0.993; P G 0.001) for TTE. Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean bias of j0.07 min, with limits of agreement between +1.30 and j1.43 min. Conclusions: Results suggest that the FTT is a useful treadmill protocol with good validity and reproducibility in healthy children and adolescents. Exercise performance on the FTT and body mass can be used to adequately predict V˙ O2peak when respiratory gas analysis is not available.

Assessing Frailty with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI)

Objective: The Tilburg Frailty Instrument (TFI) is an instrument for assessing frailty in community-dwelling older people. Since its development, many studies have been carried out examining the psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to provide a review of the main findings with regard to the reliability and validity of the TFI. Methods: We conducted a literature search in the PubMed and CINAHL databases on May 30, 2020. An inclusion criterion was the use of the entire TFI, part B, referring to the 15 components. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. Results: In total, 27 studies reported about the psychometric properties of the TFI. By far, most of the studies (n = 25) were focused on community-dwelling older people. Many studies showed that the internal consistency and test–retest reliability are good, which also applies for the criterion and construct validity. In many studies, adverse outcomes of interest were disability, increased health-care utilization, lower quality of life, and mortality. Regarding disability, studies predominantly show results that are excellent, with an area under the curve (AUC) >0.80. In addition, the TFI showed good associations with lower quality of life and the findings concerning mortality were at least acceptable. However, the association of the TFI with some indicators of health-care utilization can be indicated as poor (eg, visits to a general practitioner, hospitalization). Conclusion: Since population aging is occurring all over the world, it is important that the TFI is available and well known that it is a user-friendly instrument for assessing frailty and its psychometric properties being qualified as good. The findings of this assessment can support health-care professionals in selecting interventions to reduce frailty and delay its adverse outcomes, such as disability and lower quality of life.