颈部疼痛患者感觉运动测试的可靠性和测量误差:一项系统综述。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Simone Elsig, Lara Allet, Caroline Henrice Germaine Bastiaenen, Rob de Bie, Roger Hilfiker
{"title":"颈部疼痛患者感觉运动测试的可靠性和测量误差:一项系统综述。","authors":"Simone Elsig, Lara Allet, Caroline Henrice Germaine Bastiaenen, Rob de Bie, Roger Hilfiker","doi":"10.1186/s40945-023-00170-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neck pain is one of the leading causes of years lived with disability, and approximately half of people with neck pain experience recurrent episodes. Deficits in the sensorimotor system can persist even after pain relief, which may contribute to the chronic course of neck pain in some patients. Evaluation of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain is therefore important. No consensus exists on how sensorimotor capacities of the neck should be assessed in physiotherapy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to provide an overview of tests used in physiotherapy for assessment of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain; and (b) to provide information about reliability and measurement error of these tests, to enable physiotherapists to select appropriate tests.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies reporting data on the reliability and/or measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain. The results for reliability and measurement error were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the modified GRADE method proposed by the COSMIN group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 206 tests for assessment of sensorimotor capacities of the neck were identified and categorized into 18 groups of tests. The included tests did not cover all aspects of the sensorimotor system; tests for the sensory and motor components were identified, but not for the central integration component. Furthermore, no data were found on reliability or measurement error for some tests that are used in practice, such as movement control tests, which apply to the motor component. Approximately half of the tests showed good reliability, and 12 were rated as having good (+) reliability. However, tests that evaluated complex movements, which are more difficult to standardize, were less reliable. Measurement error could not be evaluated because the minimal clinically important change was not available for all tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the quality of evidence is not yet high enough to enable clear recommendations about which tests to use to assess the sensorimotor capacities of the neck.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10428553/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Simone Elsig, Lara Allet, Caroline Henrice Germaine Bastiaenen, Rob de Bie, Roger Hilfiker\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-023-00170-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neck pain is one of the leading causes of years lived with disability, and approximately half of people with neck pain experience recurrent episodes. Deficits in the sensorimotor system can persist even after pain relief, which may contribute to the chronic course of neck pain in some patients. Evaluation of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain is therefore important. No consensus exists on how sensorimotor capacities of the neck should be assessed in physiotherapy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to provide an overview of tests used in physiotherapy for assessment of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain; and (b) to provide information about reliability and measurement error of these tests, to enable physiotherapists to select appropriate tests.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies reporting data on the reliability and/or measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain. The results for reliability and measurement error were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the modified GRADE method proposed by the COSMIN group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 206 tests for assessment of sensorimotor capacities of the neck were identified and categorized into 18 groups of tests. The included tests did not cover all aspects of the sensorimotor system; tests for the sensory and motor components were identified, but not for the central integration component. Furthermore, no data were found on reliability or measurement error for some tests that are used in practice, such as movement control tests, which apply to the motor component. Approximately half of the tests showed good reliability, and 12 were rated as having good (+) reliability. However, tests that evaluated complex movements, which are more difficult to standardize, were less reliable. Measurement error could not be evaluated because the minimal clinically important change was not available for all tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the quality of evidence is not yet high enough to enable clear recommendations about which tests to use to assess the sensorimotor capacities of the neck.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10428553/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00170-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00170-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:颈部疼痛是导致残疾的主要原因之一,大约一半的颈部疼痛患者会反复发作。感觉运动系统的缺陷即使在疼痛缓解后也会持续存在,这可能导致一些患者的慢性颈部疼痛。因此,评估颈部疼痛患者的感觉运动能力非常重要。在物理治疗中如何评估颈部感觉运动能力尚无共识。本系统综述的目的是:(a)提供用于评估颈部疼痛患者感觉运动能力的物理治疗测试的概述;(b)提供有关这些测试的可靠性和测量误差的信息,以便物理治疗师选择合适的测试。方法:检索Medline、CINAHL、Embase和PsycINFO数据库,检索报告颈痛患者感觉运动测试的可靠性和/或测量误差的研究。将可靠性和测量误差的结果与良好测量性能的标准进行了比较。依据COSMIN组提出的改良GRADE方法评价证据质量。结果:共鉴定出206项颈部感觉运动能力评估测试,并将其分为18组测试。所包括的测试并没有涵盖感觉运动系统的所有方面;对感觉和运动部分进行了测试,但没有对中央整合部分进行测试。此外,没有发现有关实际使用的一些测试的可靠性或测量误差的数据,例如适用于电机部件的运动控制测试。大约一半的测试显示出良好的可靠性,12个被评为具有良好(+)可靠性。然而,评估复杂动作的测试更难以标准化,因此不太可靠。测量误差无法评估,因为不是所有试验都能得到最小的临床重要变化。结论:总的来说,证据的质量还不够高,不足以明确建议使用哪些测试来评估颈部感觉运动能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review.

Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review.

Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review.

Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review.

Background: Neck pain is one of the leading causes of years lived with disability, and approximately half of people with neck pain experience recurrent episodes. Deficits in the sensorimotor system can persist even after pain relief, which may contribute to the chronic course of neck pain in some patients. Evaluation of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain is therefore important. No consensus exists on how sensorimotor capacities of the neck should be assessed in physiotherapy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to provide an overview of tests used in physiotherapy for assessment of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain; and (b) to provide information about reliability and measurement error of these tests, to enable physiotherapists to select appropriate tests.

Methods: Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies reporting data on the reliability and/or measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain. The results for reliability and measurement error were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the modified GRADE method proposed by the COSMIN group.

Results: A total of 206 tests for assessment of sensorimotor capacities of the neck were identified and categorized into 18 groups of tests. The included tests did not cover all aspects of the sensorimotor system; tests for the sensory and motor components were identified, but not for the central integration component. Furthermore, no data were found on reliability or measurement error for some tests that are used in practice, such as movement control tests, which apply to the motor component. Approximately half of the tests showed good reliability, and 12 were rated as having good (+) reliability. However, tests that evaluated complex movements, which are more difficult to standardize, were less reliable. Measurement error could not be evaluated because the minimal clinically important change was not available for all tests.

Conclusion: Overall, the quality of evidence is not yet high enough to enable clear recommendations about which tests to use to assess the sensorimotor capacities of the neck.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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