Shannon Pike1,2, Anne Cusick3, Kylie Wales4, Lisa Cameron5, Lynne Turner-Stokes6,7, Stephen Ashford6,7,8, Natasha A Lannin1,5,9. 1. School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport (Occupational Therapy), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Wagga Wagga Ambulatory Rehabilitation Service, Murrumbidgee Local Health District, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Regional Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Northwick Park Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 7. King's College London, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, London, United Kingdom. 8. Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Allied health led Research, University College London Hospitals, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Neurosciences, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review appraises the measurement quality of tools which assess activity and/or participation in adults with upper limb spasticity arising from neurological impairment, including methodological quality of the psychometric studies. Differences in the measurement quality of the tools for adults with a neurological impairment, but without upper limb spasticity, is also presented. METHODS: 29 measurement tools identified in a published review were appraised in this systematic review. For each identified tool, we searched 3 databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) to identify psychometric studies completed with neurorehabilitation samples. Methodological quality of instrument evaluations was assessed with use of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Synthesis of ratings allowed an overall rating of the psychometric evidence for each measurement tool to be calculated. RESULTS: 149 articles describing the development or evaluation of psychometric properties of 22 activity and/or participation measurement tools were included. Evidence specific to tool use for adults with spasticity was identified within only 15 of the 149 articles and provided evidence for 9 measurement tools only. Overall, COSMIN appraisal highlighted a lack of evidence of measurement quality. Synthesis of ratings demonstrated all measures had psychometric weaknesses or gaps in evidence (particularly for use of tools with adults with spasticity). CONCLUSIONS: The systematic search, appraisal and synthesis revealed that currently there is insufficient measurement quality evidence to recommend one tool over another. Notwithstanding this conclusion, newer tools specifically designed for use with people with neurological conditions who have upper limb spasticity, have emergent measurement properties that warrant further research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013190.
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review appraises the measurement quality of tools which assess activity and/or participation in adults with upper limb spasticity arising from neurological impairment, including methodological quality of the psychometric studies. Differences in the measurement quality of the tools for adults with a neurological impairment, but without upper limb spasticity, is also presented. METHODS: 29 measurement tools identified in a published review were appraised in this systematic review. For each identified tool, we searched 3 databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) to identify psychometric studies completed with neurorehabilitation samples. Methodological quality of instrument evaluations was assessed with use of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Synthesis of ratings allowed an overall rating of the psychometric evidence for each measurement tool to be calculated. RESULTS: 149 articles describing the development or evaluation of psychometric properties of 22 activity and/or participation measurement tools were included. Evidence specific to tool use for adults with spasticity was identified within only 15 of the 149 articles and provided evidence for 9 measurement tools only. Overall, COSMIN appraisal highlighted a lack of evidence of measurement quality. Synthesis of ratings demonstrated all measures had psychometric weaknesses or gaps in evidence (particularly for use of tools with adults with spasticity). CONCLUSIONS: The systematic search, appraisal and synthesis revealed that currently there is insufficient measurement quality evidence to recommend one tool over another. Notwithstanding this conclusion, newer tools specifically designed for use with people with neurological conditions who have upper limb spasticity, have emergent measurement properties that warrant further research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013190.
Authors: Joyce S Sabari; Ai Lian Lim; Craig A Velozo; Leigh Lehman; Owen Kieran; Jin-Shei Lai Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Ralph H B Benedict; Roee Holtzer; Robert W Motl; Frederick W Foley; Sukhmit Kaur; David Hojnacki; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.892