Cognitive communication disorders after brain injury: A systematic COSMIN review of measurement instruments

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Carmen Verhoeks , Boudewijn Bus , Indira Tendolkar , Sophie Rijnen
{"title":"Cognitive communication disorders after brain injury: A systematic COSMIN review of measurement instruments","authors":"Carmen Verhoeks ,&nbsp;Boudewijn Bus ,&nbsp;Indira Tendolkar ,&nbsp;Sophie Rijnen","doi":"10.1016/j.rehab.2024.101870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is a lack of consensus on standardized measurement instruments (MIs) for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI).</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To identify and describe the currently available MIs for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders in individuals with ABI and to evaluate the psychometric properties of MIs.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A search was conducted in 6 databases on March 12, 2024 using a validated methodological search filter. We included studies that evaluated psychometric properties of MIs used to assess cognitive communication disorders in individuals with ABI. We applied the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MIs.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 48 records reporting on 44 MIs. Of all MIs, the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) and the St Andrew's-Swansea Neurobehavioural Outcome Scale (SASNOS) were studied most extensively. No MIs had undergone exhaustive methodological evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Based on the COSMIN, only 1 of 44 MIs can be recommended as its results can be trusted. Most MIs have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their psychometric quality. The development of new tools is not necessary but further methodological studies should be conducted on promising tools. This review may help clinicians and researchers to select an MI for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders and may facilitate diagnosis and research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration</strong>: PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42020196861). No funding.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":"67 6","pages":"Article 101870"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187706572400054X/pdfft?md5=306009e03bdec4d35ebdca085fb06ef3&pid=1-s2.0-S187706572400054X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187706572400054X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is a lack of consensus on standardized measurement instruments (MIs) for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI).

Objectives

To identify and describe the currently available MIs for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders in individuals with ABI and to evaluate the psychometric properties of MIs.

Methods

A search was conducted in 6 databases on March 12, 2024 using a validated methodological search filter. We included studies that evaluated psychometric properties of MIs used to assess cognitive communication disorders in individuals with ABI. We applied the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MIs.

Results

We included 48 records reporting on 44 MIs. Of all MIs, the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) and the St Andrew's-Swansea Neurobehavioural Outcome Scale (SASNOS) were studied most extensively. No MIs had undergone exhaustive methodological evaluation.

Conclusions

Based on the COSMIN, only 1 of 44 MIs can be recommended as its results can be trusted. Most MIs have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their psychometric quality. The development of new tools is not necessary but further methodological studies should be conducted on promising tools. This review may help clinicians and researchers to select an MI for the assessment of cognitive communication disorders and may facilitate diagnosis and research.

Trial registration: PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42020196861). No funding.

脑损伤后的认知交流障碍:COSMIN 对测量工具的系统回顾。
背景:对于评估后天性脑损伤(ABI)患者认知交流障碍的标准化测量工具(MIs),目前尚缺乏共识:对于评估获得性脑损伤(ABI)患者认知交流障碍的标准化测量工具(MIs),目前尚缺乏共识:识别并描述目前可用的用于评估获得性脑损伤患者认知交流障碍的测量工具,并评估测量工具的心理测量特性:方法:2024 年 3 月 12 日,我们使用经过验证的方法学搜索过滤器在 6 个数据库中进行了搜索。我们纳入了对用于评估 ABI 患者认知交流障碍的 MIs 心理测量特性进行评估的研究。我们采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)来评估MIs的心理测量特性:结果:我们共纳入了 48 份记录,报告了 44 项损伤指数。在所有管理指标中,拉筹伯沟通问卷(LCQ)和圣安德鲁-斯旺西神经行为结果量表(SASNOS)的研究最为广泛。没有任何一种沟通量表经过了详尽的方法学评估:结论:根据 COSMIN,在 44 项精神创伤指数中,只有 1 项可以推荐,因为其结果值得信赖。大多数管理信息系统都有推荐的潜力,但需要进一步研究以评估其心理测量质量。没有必要开发新的工具,但应对有潜力的工具进行进一步的方法学研究。本综述可帮助临床医生和研究人员选择用于评估认知交流障碍的多元智能工具,并可促进诊断和研究:试验注册:PROSPERO数据库(注册号:CRD42020196861)。无资助。
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
136
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine covers all areas of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine; such as: methods of evaluation of motor, sensory, cognitive and visceral impairments; acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain; disabilities in adult and children ; processes of rehabilitation in orthopaedic, rhumatological, neurological, cardiovascular, pulmonary and urological diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信