Validity and reliability of outcome measures to assess dysfunctional breathing: a systematic review

IF 3.6 3区医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

BMJ Open Respiratory Research Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001884

Vikram Mohan, Chandrasekar Rathinam, Derick Yates, Aatit Paungmali, Christopher Boos

{"title":"Validity and reliability of outcome measures to assess dysfunctional breathing: a systematic review","authors":"Vikram Mohan, Chandrasekar Rathinam, Derick Yates, Aatit Paungmali, Christopher Boos","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of outcome measures that assess dysfunctional breathing (DB) in adults. Methods Studies on developing and evaluating measurement properties to assess DB were included. The study investigated the empirical research published between 1990 and February 2022, with an updated search in May 2023 in the Cochrane Library database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Ovid Medline (full), the Ovid Excerta Medica Database, the Ovid allied and complementary medicines database, the Ebscohost Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The included studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Data analysis and synthesis followed the COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and 10 outcome measures were identified. The psychometric properties of these outcome measures were evaluated using COSMIN. The Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) is the only outcome measure with ‘sufficient’ ratings for content validity, internal consistency, reliability and construct validity. All other outcome measures did not report characteristics of content validity in the patients’ group. Discussion The NQ showed high-quality evidence for validity and reliability in assessing DB. Our review suggests that using NQ to evaluate DB in people with bronchial asthma and hyperventilation syndrome is helpful. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties is needed for the remaining outcome measures before considering them for clinical use. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021274960. Data are available in a public, open access repository. All the relevant data were available at <https://osf.io/49hju/>.","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001884","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of outcome measures that assess dysfunctional breathing (DB) in adults. Methods Studies on developing and evaluating measurement properties to assess DB were included. The study investigated the empirical research published between 1990 and February 2022, with an updated search in May 2023 in the Cochrane Library database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Ovid Medline (full), the Ovid Excerta Medica Database, the Ovid allied and complementary medicines database, the Ebscohost Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The included studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Data analysis and synthesis followed the COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and 10 outcome measures were identified. The psychometric properties of these outcome measures were evaluated using COSMIN. The Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) is the only outcome measure with ‘sufficient’ ratings for content validity, internal consistency, reliability and construct validity. All other outcome measures did not report characteristics of content validity in the patients’ group. Discussion The NQ showed high-quality evidence for validity and reliability in assessing DB. Our review suggests that using NQ to evaluate DB in people with bronchial asthma and hyperventilation syndrome is helpful. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties is needed for the remaining outcome measures before considering them for clinical use. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021274960. Data are available in a public, open access repository. All the relevant data were available at .

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估呼吸功能障碍的结果测量的有效性和可靠性：系统综述

目的本研究旨在系统回顾评估成人呼吸功能障碍（DB）的结果测量的心理测量学特性。方法纳入有关开发和评估 DB 测量特性的研究。研究调查了 1990 年至 2022 年 2 月间发表的实证研究，并于 2023 年 5 月在 Cochrane Library 系统综述数据库和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Ovid Medline（全文）、Ovid Excerta Medica 数据库、Ovid allied and complementary medicines 数据库、Ebscohost Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature 和物理治疗证据数据库中进行了更新检索。纳入研究的方法学质量采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）偏倚风险检查表进行评估。数据分析和综合采用 COSMIN 方法对结果测量工具进行审查。结果 16 项研究符合纳入标准，并确定了 10 种结果测量方法。COSMIN 对这些结果测量工具的心理测量特性进行了评估。奈梅亨问卷（NQ）是唯一一个在内容效度、内部一致性、可靠性和结构效度方面获得 "充分 "评价的结果测量工具。在患者组中，所有其他结果测量均未报告内容效度特征。讨论 NQ 在评估 DB 方面显示了高质量的有效性和可靠性证据。我们的综述表明，使用 NQ 评估支气管哮喘和过度换气综合征患者的 DB 情况是有帮助的。在考虑将其余结果测量用于临床之前，还需要对其心理测量特性进行进一步评估。PROSPERO 注册号为 CRD42021274960。数据可在公开、开放的资料库中获取。所有相关数据可在 .

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

2.40%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.