Testes funcionais validados em indivíduos hospitalizados e não hospitalizados: revisão sistemática

Natasha Cordeiro dos Santos, N. S. Soares, Jorge Luís Motta dos Anjos, Bruno Souza de Matos, Daiane Barros Carvalho
{"title":"Testes funcionais validados em indivíduos hospitalizados e não hospitalizados: revisão sistemática","authors":"Natasha Cordeiro dos Santos, N. S. Soares, Jorge Luís Motta dos Anjos, Bruno Souza de Matos, Daiane Barros Carvalho","doi":"10.21876/rcshci.v10i4.960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the functional tests validated in different profiles of hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals and to evaluate the psychometric evidence for reliability and validity. Methods: This is a systematic review. The databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Lilacs and SciELO were used with the descriptors Functional Tests (Walk Test, Gait Speed ​​Test, Chair Stand Test, Timed Up and Go, Step Test), Validation Studies as Topic and synonyms. Validation studies of functional tests were included in hospitalized or non-hospitalized individuals who used the criteria of validity and/or reliability and related the tests to different variables. These articles could be longitudinal or cross-sectional observational or validation studies that used data from clinical trials. Articles that did not present significant characteristics of the sample and the description of the test were excluded. Results: The search resulted in 36,150 articles, and 89 were included. The studies were organized in tables with information such as author, year, validation criteria, sample, test, associated variables and results. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Conclusion: Functional tests are valid and reliable for assessing hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals and are associated with muscle strength, ability to walk, postural control, activities of daily living, risk of falls, hospitalization, and mortality.","PeriodicalId":12868,"journal":{"name":"Health science journal","volume":"26 1","pages":"23-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health science journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21876/rcshci.v10i4.960","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the functional tests validated in different profiles of hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals and to evaluate the psychometric evidence for reliability and validity. Methods: This is a systematic review. The databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Lilacs and SciELO were used with the descriptors Functional Tests (Walk Test, Gait Speed ​​Test, Chair Stand Test, Timed Up and Go, Step Test), Validation Studies as Topic and synonyms. Validation studies of functional tests were included in hospitalized or non-hospitalized individuals who used the criteria of validity and/or reliability and related the tests to different variables. These articles could be longitudinal or cross-sectional observational or validation studies that used data from clinical trials. Articles that did not present significant characteristics of the sample and the description of the test were excluded. Results: The search resulted in 36,150 articles, and 89 were included. The studies were organized in tables with information such as author, year, validation criteria, sample, test, associated variables and results. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Conclusion: Functional tests are valid and reliable for assessing hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals and are associated with muscle strength, ability to walk, postural control, activities of daily living, risk of falls, hospitalization, and mortality.
住院和非住院患者的验证功能测试:系统综述
目的:对在住院和非住院个体的不同特征中被验证的功能测试进行系统回顾,并评估心理测量证据的信度和效度。方法:系统综述。数据库为EMBASE、MEDLINE、Lilacs和SciELO,描述符为功能测试(步行测试、步态速度测试、椅子站立测试、计时起身和行走、台阶测试),验证研究作为主题和同义词。功能测试的验证研究纳入住院或非住院个体,这些个体使用效度和/或信度标准,并将测试与不同变量相关。这些文章可以是使用临床试验数据的纵向或横断面观察性研究或验证性研究。没有表现出样本显著特征和试验描述的文章被排除在外。结果:检索结果为36150篇,其中89篇被收录。这些研究以表格形式组织,包括作者、年份、验证标准、样本、测试、相关变量和结果等信息。使用观察性队列和横断面研究的质量评估工具评估文章的质量。结论:功能测试对于评估住院和非住院个体是有效和可靠的,并且与肌肉力量、行走能力、姿势控制、日常生活活动、跌倒风险、住院和死亡率相关。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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