OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of assessment methods used for identifying and measuring scapular dyskinesis (SD) in asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, and studies on the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of physical examination tests used for identifying SD in asymptomatic people were identified. Methodological quality of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist by two reviewers. The overall level of evidence of this systematic review was determined by the Modified Cochrane Back Pain Criteria based on previous research which was modified for reliability studies of the shoulder complex. RESULTS: The literature search generated 388 results, and only 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, reliabilities of two qualitative and five quantitative methods for the assessment of SD were analyzed. The QAREL checklist revealed that 12 studies had moderate risk of bias and 2 had high risk of bias. Additionally, none of the studies were of high quality. On the basis of the Modified Cochrane Back Pain Criteria, the overall level of evidence was moderate. Most of the studies including quantitative measurement methods found good to excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability values. Most of the studies including qualitative methods found low-to-moderate intra- and inter-rater reliability values. CONCLUSION: Considering the available published evidence, there is lack of high-quality studies evaluating the inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of qualitative or quantitative methods used for the assessment of SD. There are no qualitative methods with high reliability that are fit for clinical applications. Some quantitative methods with higher reliability are present, but clinicians should be aware of the methodological flaws that studies evaluating these methods suffer from. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic study.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of assessment methods used for identifying and measuring scapular dyskinesis (SD) in asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, and studies on the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of physical examination tests used for identifying SD in asymptomatic people were identified. Methodological quality of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist by two reviewers. The overall level of evidence of this systematic review was determined by the Modified Cochrane Back Pain Criteria based on previous research which was modified for reliability studies of the shoulder complex. RESULTS: The literature search generated 388 results, and only 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, reliabilities of two qualitative and five quantitative methods for the assessment of SD were analyzed. The QAREL checklist revealed that 12 studies had moderate risk of bias and 2 had high risk of bias. Additionally, none of the studies were of high quality. On the basis of the Modified Cochrane Back Pain Criteria, the overall level of evidence was moderate. Most of the studies including quantitative measurement methods found good to excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability values. Most of the studies including qualitative methods found low-to-moderate intra- and inter-rater reliability values. CONCLUSION: Considering the available published evidence, there is lack of high-quality studies evaluating the inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of qualitative or quantitative methods used for the assessment of SD. There are no qualitative methods with high reliability that are fit for clinical applications. Some quantitative methods with higher reliability are present, but clinicians should be aware of the methodological flaws that studies evaluating these methods suffer from. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic study.
Authors: Filip Struyf; Jo Nijs; Kris De Coninck; Marco Giunta; Sarah Mottram; Romain Meeusen Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: F B Ortega; E G Artero; J R Ruiz; G Vicente-Rodriguez; P Bergman; M Hagströmer; C Ottevaere; E Nagy; O Konsta; J P Rey-López; A Polito; S Dietrich; M Plada; L Béghin; Y Manios; M Sjöström; M J Castillo Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.095