What is the reliability of clinical measurement tests for humeral head position? A systematic review

Reliability and measurement error of tests used for the assessment of throwing performance in overhead athletes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Throwing Performance (TP) is important in throwing sports. Several tests have been designed to assess TP, and the reliability of these tests was examined in various studies. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and synthesize the studies that examined the reliability of TP tests.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus to identify studies related to TP and reliability. The quality of the included studies was examined through the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) tool. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while responsiveness was assessed using the minimal detectable change (MDC). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify whether low-quality studies may have biased the recommendations of this review.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were found eligible. The results showed a moderate level of evidence to suggest that TP tests have good reliability (ICC≥0.76). This recommendation was also applied separately when TP tests were used to measure throwing velocity, distance covered, endurance and throwing accuracy. Also, summated MDC scores were reported to assist coaches in decision-making when using TP tests to detect real performance changes. However, sensitivity analysis showed that there is a significant number of low-quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed that the tests used for throwing performance assessment are reliable; however, due to a significant number of low-quality studies, these results should be used cautiously. Important recommendations of this review may be used in future studies to design high-quality studies.

Leg length discrepancy: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics used in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

A variety of assessments to determine leg length discrepancy (LLD) is used in clinical practice and evidence about validity and reliability may differ.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe the validity and reliability of different assessments and imaging diagnostics for the determination of LLD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases Medline (PubMed) and Index to Chiropractic Literature were systematically searched. Studies regarding clinical assessments and imaging diagnostics for the diagnosis of LLD, which reported the clinimetric properties for assessment of LLD, were included and screened for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool for validity studies and the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) tool for reliability studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles on clinical assessments and 15 studies on imaging diagnostics met the eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies on the validity of clinical assessments and six studies on the validity of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability for all domains. One study on the reliability of clinical assessments and one study on the reliability of imaging diagnostics had a low risk of bias. Main limitations were, that an analysis of sensitivity and specificity was only performed in a few studies and that a valid reference standard was lacking in numerous studies on clinical assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

For the clinical assessment of LLD, the block test appears to be the most useful method. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiography seems to be the most valid and reliable method and may be used as global reference standard to measure the anatomic LLD when comparing clinical methods and imaging diagnostics.

Reliability of assessment methods for scapular dyskinesis in asymptomatic subjects: A systematic review

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.

Role of kinesiophobia on pain, disability and quality of life in people suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

Objective

(1) To explore the level of association between kinesiophobia and pain, disability and quality of life in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) detected via cross-sectional analysis and (2) to analyse the prognostic value of kinesiophobia on pain, disability and quality of life in this population detected via longitudinal analyses.

Design

A systematic review of the literature including an appraisal of the risk of bias using the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A synthesis of the evidence was carried out.

Data sources

An electronic search of PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubPsych and grey literature was undertaken from inception to July 2017.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Observational studies exploring the role of kinesiophobia (measured with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia) on pain, disability and quality of life in people with CMP.

Results

Sixty-three articles (mostly cross-sectional) (total sample=10 726) were included. We found strong evidence for an association between a greater degree of kinesiophobia and greater levels of pain intensity and disability and moderate evidence between a greater degree of kinesiophobia and higher levels of pain severity and low quality of life. A greater degree of kinesiophobia predicts the progression of disability overtime, with moderate evidence. A greater degree of kinesiophobia also predicts greater levels of pain severity and low levels of quality of life at 6 months, but with limited evidence. Kinesiophobia does not predict changes in pain intensity.

Summary/conclusions

The results of this review encourage clinicians to consider kinesiophobia in their preliminary assessment. More longitudinal studies are needed, as most of the included studies were cross-sectional in nature.

Trial registration number

CRD42016042641.