Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38332128›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2024

A systematic review and meta analysis of measurement properties for the flexion relaxation ratio in people with and without non specific spine pain.

Diana De Carvalho, Sarah Mackey, Daphne To, Allyson Summers, Mona Frey, Kristen Romme, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Samuel J Howarth

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Review
  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

8 authors.

Diana De CarvalhoDivision of Population Health and Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada. ddecarvalho@mun.ca.
Sarah MackeyDivision of Population Health and Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Daphne ToDepartment of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Allyson SummersDivision of Population Health and Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Mona FreyDivision of BioMedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Kristen RommeHealth Sciences Library, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Sheilah Hogg-JohnsonDivision of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Samuel J HowarthDivision of Research and Innovation, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine Dean's Fellowship (Masters) Memorial University of NewfoundlandNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant #20161771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review sought to identify, critically appraise, compare, and summarize the literature on the reliability, discriminative validity and responsiveness of the flexion relaxation ratio (FRR) in adults (≥ 18 years old) with or without spine pain (any duration), in either a clinical or research context. The review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27EDF ) and follows COSMIN, PRISMA, and PRESS guidelines. Six databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2022. The search string was developed by content experts and a health services librarian. Two pairs of reviewers independently completed titles/abstracts and full text screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (COSMIN RoB Toolkit). At all stages, discrepancies were resolved through consensus meetings. Data were pooled where possible with a three-level random effects meta-analyses and a modified GRADE assessment was used for the summary of findings. Following duplicate removal, 728 titles/abstracts and 219 full texts were screened with 23 included in this review. We found, with moderate certainty of evidence, that the cervical FRR has high test-retest reliability and lumbar FRR has moderate to high test-retest reliability, and with high certainty of evidence that the cervical and lumbar FRR can discriminate between healthy and clinical groups (standardized mean difference - 1.16 [95% CI - 2.00, - 0.32] and - 1.21 [- 1.84, - 0.58] respectively). There was not enough evidence to summarize findings for thoracic FRR discriminative validity or the standard error of measurement for the FRR. Several studies used FRR assuming responsiveness, but no studies were designed in a way that could confirm responsiveness. The evidence supports adequate reliability of FRR for the cervical and lumbar spine, and discriminative validity for the cervical and lumbar spine only. Improvements in study design and reporting are needed to strengthen the evidence base to determine the remaining measurement properties of this outcome.

Indexed as

Bone DiseasesLumbosacral RegionAdolescentAdultHumansLumbar VertebraePainReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38332128
PMCPMC10853169

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.