Evaluating lower limb tendinopathy with Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaires: a systematic review shows very-low-quality evidence for their content and structural validity-part I.

PURPOSE: The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (Achilles tendon-VISA-A, greater trochanteric pain syndrome-VISA-G, proximal hamstring tendinopathy-VISA-H, patellar tendon-VISA-P) questionnaires are widely used in research and clinical practice; however, no systematic reviews have formally evaluated their content, structural, and cross-cultural validity evidence. The measurement properties referring to content, structural and cross-cultural validity of the VISA questionnaires were appraised and synthesized. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SportsDiscus, grey literature, and reference lists were searched. Development studies and cross-cultural adaptations (12 languages) assessing content or structural validity of the VISA questionnaires were included and two reviewers assessed their methodological quality. Evidence for content (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility), structural, and cross-cultural validity was synthesized. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to evidence synthesis. RESULTS: The VISA-A presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility. VISA-G displayed moderate-quality evidence for sufficient comprehensibility and very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance and comprehensiveness. The VISA-P presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility, while VISA-H presented very-low evidence of insufficient content validity. VISA-A displayed low-quality evidence for structural validity concerning unidimensionality and internal structure, while VISA-H presented low-quality evidence of insufficient unidimensionality. The structural validity of VISA-G and VISA-P were indeterminate and inconsistent, respectively. Internal consistency for VISA-G, VISA-H, and VISA-P was indeterminate. No studies evaluated cross-cultural validity, while measurement invariance across sexes was assessed in one study. CONCLUSIONS: Only very-low-quality evidence exists for the content and structural validity of VISA questionnaires when assessing the severity of symptoms and disability in patients with lower limb tendinopathies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO reference-CRD42019126595.

A systematic review evaluating the clinimetric properties of the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaires for lower limb tendinopathy shows moderate to high-quality evidence for sufficient reliability, validity and responsiveness-part II.

PURPOSE: The evaluation of measurement properties such as reliability, measurement error, construct validity, and responsiveness provides information on the quality of the scale as a whole, rather than on an item level. We aimed to synthesize the measurement properties referring to reliability, measurement error, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment questionnaires (Achilles tendon-VISA-A, greater trochanteric pain syndrome-VISA-G, proximal hamstring tendinopathy-VISA-H, patellar tendon-VISA-P). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methodology (COSMIN). PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SportsDiscus, grey literature, and reference lists were searched. Studies assessing the measurement properties concerning reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the VISA questionnaires in patients with lower limb tendinopathies were included. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies assessing reliability, validity, and responsiveness using the COSMIN guidelines and the evidence for these measurement properties. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to the evidence synthesis. RESULTS: There is moderate-quality evidence for sufficient VISA-A, VISA-G, and VISA-P reliability. There is moderate-quality evidence for sufficient VISA-G and VISA-P measurement error, and high-quality evidence for sufficient construct validity for all the VISA questionnaires. Furthermore, high-quality evidence exists with regard to VISA-A for sufficient responsiveness in patients with insertional Achilles tendinopathy following conservative interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient reliability, measurement error, construct validity and responsiveness were found for the VISA questionnaires with variable quality of evidence except for VISA-A which displayed insufficient measurement error. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Prospero (CRD42018107671); PROSPERO reference-CRD42019126595.

Lumbo-pelvic proprioception in sitting is impaired in subgroups of low back pain-But the clinical utility of the differences is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Altered spinal postures and altered motor control observed among people with non-specific low back pain have been associated with abnormal processing of sensory inputs. Evidence indicates that patients with non-specific low back pain have impaired lumbo-pelvic proprioceptive acuity compared to asymptomatic individuals. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review seated lumbo-pelvic proprioception among people with non-specific low back pain. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing lumbo-pelvic proprioception using active repositioning accuracy in sitting posture in individuals with and without non-specific low back pain. Study quality was assessed by using a modified Downs and Black's checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted tool for cross-sectional design and case-control studies. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. Meta-analyses included subgroup analyses according to disability level, directional subgrouping pattern, and availability of vision during testing. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: 16 studies met the eligibility criteria. Pooled meta-analyses were possible for absolute error, variable error, and constant error, measured in sagittal and transverse planes. There is very low and low certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable repositioning error in seated tasks among non-specific low back pain patients overall compared to asymptomatic individuals (sagittal plane). Subgroup analyses indicate moderate certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable error in seated tasks among directional subgroups of adults with non-specific low back pain, along with weaker evidence (low-very low certainty) of greater constant error. DISCUSSION: Lumbo-pelvic proprioception is impaired among people with non-specific low back pain. However, the low certainty of evidence, the small magnitude of error observed and the calculated "noise" of proprioception measures, suggest that any observed differences in lumbo-pelvic proprioception may be of limited clinical utility. PROSPERO-ID: CRD42018107671.

Physiotherapist perceptions of optimal sitting and standing posture.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of, and advice about, spinal posture is common when people with spinal pain present to physiotherapists. Most descriptions regarding optimal spinal posture have been qualitative in nature. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beliefs of physiotherapists regarding optimal sitting and standing posture. DESIGN: Online survey. METHOD: 544 Greek physiotherapists selected an optimal sitting (choice of seven) and standing (choice of five) posture, while providing justification for their choice. RESULTS: Education regarding optimal sitting and standing posture was considered "considerably" or "very" important by 93.9% of participants. Three different sitting postures, and two different standing postures, were selected as the optimal posture by 97.5% and 98.2% of physiotherapists respectively. While this reflects a lack of complete consensus on optimal posture, the most commonly selected postures were all some variation of upright lordotic sitting, in contrast slouched spinal curves (sitting) or forward head posture (sitting and standing) almost never being selected as optimal. Interestingly, participants used similar arguments (e.g. natural curves, muscle activation) to justify their selection regardless of the spinal configuration of each selected posture. CONCLUSIONS: These results reinforce previous data suggesting that upright lordotic sitting postures are considered optimal, despite a lack of strong evidence that any specific posture is linked to better health outcomes. While postural re-education may play a role in the management of spinal pain for some patients, awareness of such widespread and stereotypical beliefs regarding optimal posture may be useful in clinical assessment and management.