Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35714149›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Practicable performance-based outcome measures of trunk muscle strength and their measurement properties: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Shouq Althobaiti, Alison Rushton, Ahmad Aldahas, Deborah Falla, Nicola R Heneghan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Shouq AlthobaitiCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9791-4121
Alison RushtonSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Ahmad AldahasCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8872-2419
Deborah FallaCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Nicola R HeneghanCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7599-3674
University of Birmingham · GBTaif University · SAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe evaluation of muscle strength is frequently used as part of the physical examination process, with decreased trunk muscle strength reported in individuals with spinal disorders (e.g., low back pain). Access to practicable performance-based outcome measures (PBOM) to monitor patients' progress in spinal rehabilitation is essential. Knowledge of the psychometric properties of the available practicable PBOM for trunk strength evaluation is therefore needed to inform practitioners and further research.

objectiveTo synthesise evidence on the measurement properties of practicable measures of trunk muscle strength in adults with and without musculoskeletal pain.

methodsFollowing a published and registered protocol [PROSPERO CRD42020167464], databases were searched from the database inception date up to 30th of June 2021. Citations and grey literature were also searched. Eligibility criteria comprised: 1) studies which examined the psychometric properties of the trunk strength outcome measures, 2) included adults ≥ 18 years, either asymptomatic or with spinal musculoskeletal pain. Non-English language studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality and synthesized the data from included studies according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

resultsFrom 34 included studies, 15 different PBOMs were identified that have been investigated for reliability and validity, none evaluated responsiveness. In asymptomatic individuals, high quality evidence supports intra-rater reliability of digital-loading cells and moderate quality evidence supports the criterion validity of the hand-held dynamometer. Very low quality evidence exists for the reliability and validity estimates of testing tools among individuals with spinal pain.

conclusionsFindings underpin a cautious recommendation for the use of practicable PROMs to evaluate muscle strength in individuals with spinal pain in clinical practice due to the level of evidence and the heterogeneity of the protocols used. Further high quality research to explore the psychometric properties of the practicable PBOMs with detailed methodology is now needed.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal PainAdultHumansMuscle StrengthOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35714149
PMCPMC9205516
OpenAlexW4283026288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.