Max Jakobsson1, Annelie Gutke2, Lidwine B Mokkink3, Rob Smeets4, Mari Lundberg5. 1. Back in Motion Research Group, Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal Hospital, Göteborgsvägen 31, 431 80 Mölndal, Gothenburg, 41326 Sweden. 2. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research School of CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; and CIR Revalidatie, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 5. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg; Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; and Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical capacity tasks (ie, observer-administered outcome measures that comprise a standardized activity) are useful for assessing functioning in patients with low back pain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the level of evidence for the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and relevant reference lists were used as data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected articles addressing the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks, and a third author resolved discrepancies. DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT: One author performed data extraction, and a second author independently checked the data extraction for accuracy. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point checklist, and a third author resolved discrepancies. DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS: Data synthesis was performed by all authors to determine the level of evidence per measurement property per physical capacity task. The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 5-minute walk, 50-ft (∼15.3-m) walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks displayed moderate to strong evidence for positive ratings of both reliability and construct validity. The 1-minute stair-climbing, 5-repetition sit-to-stand, shuttle walking, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks showed limited evidence for positive ratings of responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: The COSMIN 4-point checklist was originally developed for patient-reported outcome measures and not physical capacity tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 50-ft walk, 5-minute walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, Timed "Up & Go," and 1-minute stair-climbing tasks are promising tests for the measurement of functioning in patients with chronic low back pain. However, more research on the measurement error and responsiveness of these tasks is needed to be able to fully recommend them as outcome measures in research and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Physical capacity tasks (ie, observer-administered outcome measures that comprise a standardized activity) are useful for assessing functioning in patients with low back pain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the level of evidence for the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and relevant reference lists were used as data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected articles addressing the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks, and a third author resolved discrepancies. DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT: One author performed data extraction, and a second author independently checked the data extraction for accuracy. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point checklist, and a third author resolved discrepancies. DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS: Data synthesis was performed by all authors to determine the level of evidence per measurement property per physical capacity task. The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 5-minute walk, 50-ft (∼15.3-m) walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks displayed moderate to strong evidence for positive ratings of both reliability and construct validity. The 1-minute stair-climbing, 5-repetition sit-to-stand, shuttle walking, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks showed limited evidence for positive ratings of responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: The COSMIN 4-point checklist was originally developed for patient-reported outcome measures and not physical capacity tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 50-ft walk, 5-minute walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, Timed "Up & Go," and 1-minute stair-climbing tasks are promising tests for the measurement of functioning in patients with chronic low back pain. However, more research on the measurement error and responsiveness of these tasks is needed to be able to fully recommend them as outcome measures in research and clinical practice.
Authors: Oliver P Gautschi; Nicolas R Smoll; Marco V Corniola; Holger Joswig; Ivan Chau; Gerhard Hildebrandt; Karl Schaller; Martin N Stienen Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Timo B Brakenhoff; Marian Mitroiu; Ruth H Keogh; Karel G M Moons; Rolf H H Groenwold; Maarten van Smeden Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: L B Mokkink; H C W de Vet; C A C Prinsen; D L Patrick; J Alonso; L M Bouter; C B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Tucker Drury; S Elizabeth Ames; Kerry Costi; Bruce Beynnon; Jonathan Hall Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Juliana Valentim Bittencourt; Ana Carolina de Melo Magalhães Amaral; Pedro Vidinha Rodrigues; Leticia Amaral Corrêa; Bruno Moreira Silva; Felipe José Jandre Reis; Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira Journal: Arch Physiother Date: 2021-01-11