{"title":"腰椎手术中或手术后患者的定时起立行走测试的可靠性和有效性:系统综述与荟萃分析","authors":"Fatih Özden","doi":"10.1186/s41983-024-00805-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"No other systematic review examined the measurement properties of the TUG in LSS. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the measurement properties of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) in patients with Lumbar Spine Surgery (LSS). A literature search yielded 906 studies [PubMed:71, Web of Science (WoS):80, Scopus:214, ScienceDirect:471 and Cochrane Library:70]. Included 10 studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality using the “four-point COSMIN tool” and “COSMIN quality criteria tool”. Criterion validity and responsiveness results were pooled with “correlation coefficient” and “Hedges’ g” based effect size, respectively. The correlation coefficient pooling between TUG and VAS back and leg pain was 0.26 (moderate) (95% CI 0.19–0.34) and 0.28 (moderate) (95% CI 0.20–0.36). The pooled coefficient of TUG with ODI and RMDI was 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.27–0.39) and 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.24–0.42), respectively. Besides, TUG has correlated with the quality-of-life PROMs with a coefficient of − 0.22 to − 0.26 (moderate) (EQ5D Index 95% CI − 0.35 to − 0.16), (SF12-PCS 95% CI − 0.33 to − 0.15) and (SF12-MCS 95% CI − 0.32 to − 0.13). The pooled coefficient of TUG with COMI, ZCQ-PF and ZCQ-SS was 0.46 (moderate) (95% CI 0.30–0.59), 0.43 (moderate) (95% CI 0.26–0.56), and 0.38 (moderate) (95% CI 0.21–0.52), respectively. TUG’s 3-day and 6-week responsiveness results were 0.14 (low) (95% CI − 0.02 to 0.29) and 0.74 (moderate to strong) (95% CI 0.60–0.89), respectively. TUG was responsive at the mid-term (6 weeks) follow-up. In clinical practice, the TUG can be used as a reliable, valid and responsive tool to assess LSS patients’ general status, especially in mid-term.","PeriodicalId":74995,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability and validity of the Timed Up and Go test in patients ongoing or following lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Fatih Özden\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41983-024-00805-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"No other systematic review examined the measurement properties of the TUG in LSS. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the measurement properties of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) in patients with Lumbar Spine Surgery (LSS). A literature search yielded 906 studies [PubMed:71, Web of Science (WoS):80, Scopus:214, ScienceDirect:471 and Cochrane Library:70]. Included 10 studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality using the “four-point COSMIN tool” and “COSMIN quality criteria tool”. Criterion validity and responsiveness results were pooled with “correlation coefficient” and “Hedges’ g” based effect size, respectively. The correlation coefficient pooling between TUG and VAS back and leg pain was 0.26 (moderate) (95% CI 0.19–0.34) and 0.28 (moderate) (95% CI 0.20–0.36). The pooled coefficient of TUG with ODI and RMDI was 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.27–0.39) and 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.24–0.42), respectively. Besides, TUG has correlated with the quality-of-life PROMs with a coefficient of − 0.22 to − 0.26 (moderate) (EQ5D Index 95% CI − 0.35 to − 0.16), (SF12-PCS 95% CI − 0.33 to − 0.15) and (SF12-MCS 95% CI − 0.32 to − 0.13). The pooled coefficient of TUG with COMI, ZCQ-PF and ZCQ-SS was 0.46 (moderate) (95% CI 0.30–0.59), 0.43 (moderate) (95% CI 0.26–0.56), and 0.38 (moderate) (95% CI 0.21–0.52), respectively. TUG’s 3-day and 6-week responsiveness results were 0.14 (low) (95% CI − 0.02 to 0.29) and 0.74 (moderate to strong) (95% CI 0.60–0.89), respectively. TUG was responsive at the mid-term (6 weeks) follow-up. In clinical practice, the TUG can be used as a reliable, valid and responsive tool to assess LSS patients’ general status, especially in mid-term.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00805-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00805-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目前还没有其他系统综述对腰椎手术患者的 TUG 测量特性进行研究。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究腰椎手术(LSS)患者的定时起立行走(TUG)测量特性。文献检索共获得 906 项研究[PubMed:71、Web of Science (WoS):80、Scopus:214、ScienceDirect:471 和 Cochrane Library:70]。采用 "四点 COSMIN 工具 "和 "COSMIN 质量标准工具 "对纳入的 10 项研究进行了偏倚风险和质量评估。标准有效性和反应性结果分别以 "相关系数 "和 "Hedges'g "效应大小为基础进行汇总。TUG 与 VAS 背痛和腿痛之间的相关系数分别为 0.26(中等)(95% CI 0.19-0.34)和 0.28(中等)(95% CI 0.20-0.36)。TUG与ODI和RMDI的集合系数分别为0.33(中度)(95% CI 0.27-0.39)和0.33(中度)(95% CI 0.24-0.42)。此外,TUG 与生活质量 PROMs 的相关系数为 - 0.22 至 - 0.26(中度)(EQ5D 指数 95% CI - 0.35 至 - 0.16)、(SF12-PCS 95% CI - 0.33 至 - 0.15)和(SF12-MCS 95% CI - 0.32 至 - 0.13)。TUG与COMI、ZCQ-PF和ZCQ-SS的集合系数分别为0.46(中等)(95% CI 0.30-0.59)、0.43(中等)(95% CI 0.26-0.56)和0.38(中等)(95% CI 0.21-0.52)。TUG 3 天和 6 周的反应性结果分别为 0.14(低)(95% CI - 0.02 至 0.29)和 0.74(中度至强)(95% CI 0.60 至 0.89)。TUG在中期(6周)随访时反应良好。在临床实践中,TUG可作为一种可靠、有效且反应灵敏的工具来评估LSS患者的一般状况,尤其是在中期。
The reliability and validity of the Timed Up and Go test in patients ongoing or following lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
No other systematic review examined the measurement properties of the TUG in LSS. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the measurement properties of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) in patients with Lumbar Spine Surgery (LSS). A literature search yielded 906 studies [PubMed:71, Web of Science (WoS):80, Scopus:214, ScienceDirect:471 and Cochrane Library:70]. Included 10 studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality using the “four-point COSMIN tool” and “COSMIN quality criteria tool”. Criterion validity and responsiveness results were pooled with “correlation coefficient” and “Hedges’ g” based effect size, respectively. The correlation coefficient pooling between TUG and VAS back and leg pain was 0.26 (moderate) (95% CI 0.19–0.34) and 0.28 (moderate) (95% CI 0.20–0.36). The pooled coefficient of TUG with ODI and RMDI was 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.27–0.39) and 0.33 (moderate) (95% CI 0.24–0.42), respectively. Besides, TUG has correlated with the quality-of-life PROMs with a coefficient of − 0.22 to − 0.26 (moderate) (EQ5D Index 95% CI − 0.35 to − 0.16), (SF12-PCS 95% CI − 0.33 to − 0.15) and (SF12-MCS 95% CI − 0.32 to − 0.13). The pooled coefficient of TUG with COMI, ZCQ-PF and ZCQ-SS was 0.46 (moderate) (95% CI 0.30–0.59), 0.43 (moderate) (95% CI 0.26–0.56), and 0.38 (moderate) (95% CI 0.21–0.52), respectively. TUG’s 3-day and 6-week responsiveness results were 0.14 (low) (95% CI − 0.02 to 0.29) and 0.74 (moderate to strong) (95% CI 0.60–0.89), respectively. TUG was responsive at the mid-term (6 weeks) follow-up. In clinical practice, the TUG can be used as a reliable, valid and responsive tool to assess LSS patients’ general status, especially in mid-term.