遗传性神经肌肉疾病成年患者的步行测试结果:关于其测量特性的系统性文献综述。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08095-X
Nawale Hadouiri, Isabelle Fournel, Christel Thauvin-Robinet, Agnès Jacquin-Piques, Paul Ornetti, Mathieu Gueugnon
{"title":"遗传性神经肌肉疾病成年患者的步行测试结果:关于其测量特性的系统性文献综述。","authors":"Nawale Hadouiri, Isabelle Fournel, Christel Thauvin-Robinet, Agnès Jacquin-Piques, Paul Ornetti, Mathieu Gueugnon","doi":"10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08095-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) include a large group of heterogeneous diseases. NMDs frequently involve gait disorders, which affect quality of life. Several walking tests and tools have been described in the literature, but there is no consensus regarding the use of walking tests and tools in NMDs or of their measurement properties for walking outcomes. The aim of this review is to present an overview of walking tests, including their measurement properties when used in adults with inherited or genetic NMDs. The aim is to help clinicians and researchers choose the most appropriate test for their objective.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was conducted after consulting MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Science direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for published studies in which walking outcome measurement properties were assessed. The validity, reliability, measurement error and responsiveness properties were evaluated in terms of statistical methods and methodological design qualities using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>We included 46 studies in NMDs. These studies included 15 different walking tests and a wide variety of walking outcomes, assessed with six types of walking tools. Overall, the 6MWT was the most studied test in terms of measurement properties. The methodological design and statistical methods of most studies evaluating construct validity, reliability and measurement error were \"very good.\" The majority of outcome measurements were valid and reliable. However, studies on responsiveness as minimal important difference or minimal important change were lacking or were found to have inadequate methodological and statistical methods according to the COSMIN guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most walking outcomes were found to be valid and reliable in NMDs. However, in view of the growing number of clinical trials, further studies are needed to clarify additional measurement properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11114158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Walking test outcomes in adults with genetic neuromuscular diseases: a systematic literature review of their measurement properties.\",\"authors\":\"Nawale Hadouiri, Isabelle Fournel, Christel Thauvin-Robinet, Agnès Jacquin-Piques, Paul Ornetti, Mathieu Gueugnon\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08095-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) include a large group of heterogeneous diseases. NMDs frequently involve gait disorders, which affect quality of life. Several walking tests and tools have been described in the literature, but there is no consensus regarding the use of walking tests and tools in NMDs or of their measurement properties for walking outcomes. The aim of this review is to present an overview of walking tests, including their measurement properties when used in adults with inherited or genetic NMDs. The aim is to help clinicians and researchers choose the most appropriate test for their objective.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was conducted after consulting MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Science direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for published studies in which walking outcome measurement properties were assessed. The validity, reliability, measurement error and responsiveness properties were evaluated in terms of statistical methods and methodological design qualities using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>We included 46 studies in NMDs. These studies included 15 different walking tests and a wide variety of walking outcomes, assessed with six types of walking tools. Overall, the 6MWT was the most studied test in terms of measurement properties. The methodological design and statistical methods of most studies evaluating construct validity, reliability and measurement error were \\\"very good.\\\" The majority of outcome measurements were valid and reliable. However, studies on responsiveness as minimal important difference or minimal important change were lacking or were found to have inadequate methodological and statistical methods according to the COSMIN guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most walking outcomes were found to be valid and reliable in NMDs. However, in view of the growing number of clinical trials, further studies are needed to clarify additional measurement properties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11114158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08095-X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08095-X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:神经肌肉疾病(NMD)包括一大类异质性疾病。NMD 经常会出现步态障碍,影响生活质量。文献中介绍了几种步行测试和工具,但对于步行测试和工具在 NMDs 中的应用或其对步行结果的测量特性尚未达成共识。本综述旨在概述步行测试,包括其在遗传性或基因性 NMDs 成人患者中的测量特性。目的是帮助临床医生和研究人员根据其目标选择最合适的测试:我们查阅了 MEDLINE(通过 PubMed)、EMBASE、Science direct、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 数据库中已发表的评估步行结果测量特性的研究,然后进行了系统性综述。根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)指南,从统计方法和方法设计质量方面对有效性、可靠性、测量误差和响应性进行了评估:我们纳入了 46 项关于 NMD 的研究。这些研究包括 15 种不同的步行测试和多种步行结果,使用六种步行工具进行评估。总体而言,就测量特性而言,6MWT 是研究最多的测试。大多数评估构建有效性、可靠性和测量误差的研究的方法设计和统计方法都 "非常好"。大多数结果测量是有效和可靠的。然而,根据 COSMIN 准则,缺乏关于最小重要差异或最小重要变化的响应性的研究,或研究发现方法和统计方法不足:结论:大多数步行结果在 NMDs 中都是有效和可靠的。然而,鉴于临床试验的数量不断增加,还需要进一步的研究来明确更多的测量属性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Walking test outcomes in adults with genetic neuromuscular diseases: a systematic literature review of their measurement properties.

Introduction: Neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) include a large group of heterogeneous diseases. NMDs frequently involve gait disorders, which affect quality of life. Several walking tests and tools have been described in the literature, but there is no consensus regarding the use of walking tests and tools in NMDs or of their measurement properties for walking outcomes. The aim of this review is to present an overview of walking tests, including their measurement properties when used in adults with inherited or genetic NMDs. The aim is to help clinicians and researchers choose the most appropriate test for their objective.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted after consulting MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Science direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for published studies in which walking outcome measurement properties were assessed. The validity, reliability, measurement error and responsiveness properties were evaluated in terms of statistical methods and methodological design qualities using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

Evidence synthesis: We included 46 studies in NMDs. These studies included 15 different walking tests and a wide variety of walking outcomes, assessed with six types of walking tools. Overall, the 6MWT was the most studied test in terms of measurement properties. The methodological design and statistical methods of most studies evaluating construct validity, reliability and measurement error were "very good." The majority of outcome measurements were valid and reliable. However, studies on responsiveness as minimal important difference or minimal important change were lacking or were found to have inadequate methodological and statistical methods according to the COSMIN guidelines.

Conclusions: Most walking outcomes were found to be valid and reliable in NMDs. However, in view of the growing number of clinical trials, further studies are needed to clarify additional measurement properties.

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
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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