Katja Ehrenbrusthoff1, Cormac G Ryan2, Christian Grüneberg3, Denis J Martin4. 1. Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, TS1 3BX, United Kingdom; Hochschule für Gesundheit, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: katja.ehrenbrusthoff@hs-gesundheit.de. 2. Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, TS1 3BX, United Kingdom. Electronic address: c.ryan@tees.ac.uk. 3. Hochschule für Gesundheit, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: christian.grueneberg@hs-gesundheit.de. 4. Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, TS1 3BX, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.martin@tees.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficits in the sensorimotor system and its peripheral and central processing of the affected body part might be a contributing factor to chronic low back pain (CLBP). Hence, sensorimotor assessment is important. Valid and reliable sensorimotor measurement instruments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability and validity of sensorimotor measurement instruments for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The review was undertaken using the COSMIN guidelines. Databases were searched for studies investigating the clinimetric properties of sensorimotor tests in people with CLBP. The methodological study quality was rated by two independent reviewers using the COSMIN 4-point rating checklist. RESULTS: Ten studies were included covering six sensorimotor measurement instruments with findings for reliability/measurement error, known-groups validity and convergent validity. The methodological quality ranged from poor to good, with only one study rated as good. There was insufficient evidence of enough quality to assess reliability/measurement error or convergent validity. Two-point discrimination, laterality judgement and movement control tests had moderate evidence supporting their ability to distinguish between healthy people and those with CLBP. CONCLUSIONS: Two-point discrimination, laterality judgment and movement control tests demonstrate the greatest level of known-groups validity for people with CLBP. However, as the reliability of these measurement tools has yet to be established, this validity data should be interpreted cautiously. Further research is warranted to investigate the clinimetric properties of these sensorimotor techniques.
BACKGROUND: Deficits in the sensorimotor system and its peripheral and central processing of the affected body part might be a contributing factor to chronic low back pain (CLBP). Hence, sensorimotor assessment is important. Valid and reliable sensorimotor measurement instruments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability and validity of sensorimotor measurement instruments for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The review was undertaken using the COSMIN guidelines. Databases were searched for studies investigating the clinimetric properties of sensorimotor tests in people with CLBP. The methodological study quality was rated by two independent reviewers using the COSMIN 4-point rating checklist. RESULTS: Ten studies were included covering six sensorimotor measurement instruments with findings for reliability/measurement error, known-groups validity and convergent validity. The methodological quality ranged from poor to good, with only one study rated as good. There was insufficient evidence of enough quality to assess reliability/measurement error or convergent validity. Two-point discrimination, laterality judgement and movement control tests had moderate evidence supporting their ability to distinguish between healthy people and those with CLBP. CONCLUSIONS: Two-point discrimination, laterality judgment and movement control tests demonstrate the greatest level of known-groups validity for people with CLBP. However, as the reliability of these measurement tools has yet to be established, this validity data should be interpreted cautiously. Further research is warranted to investigate the clinimetric properties of these sensorimotor techniques.
Authors: Nick A Olthof; Michel W Coppieters; G Lorimer Moseley; Michele Sterling; Dylan J Chippindall; Daniel S Harvie Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Katja Ehrenbrusthoff; Cormac G Ryan; Christian Grüneberg; Benedict M Wand; Denis J Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 3.240