Reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature regarding the reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). DESIGN: Systematic review with best evidence synthesis. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Men with LUTS due to bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction. REVIEW METHODS: PubMed, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase databases were searched for studies on the validity and reliability of assessment methods for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in primary care. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN checklist. Studies with poor methodology were excluded from the best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 5644 studies identified, 61 were scored with the COSMIN checklist, 37 studies were included in the best evidence synthesis, 18 evaluated bladder outlet obstruction and 17 benign prostatic obstruction, 2 evaluated both. Overall, reliability was poorly evaluated. Transrectal and transabdominal ultrasound showed moderate to good validity to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction. Measured prostate volume with these ultrasound methods, to identify benign prostatic obstruction, showed moderate to good accuracy, supported by a moderate to high level of evidence. Uroflowmetry for bladder outlet obstruction showed poor to moderate diagnostic accuracy, depending on used cut-off values. Questionnaires were supported by high-quality evidence, although correlations and diagnostic accuracy were poor to moderate compared with criterion tests. Other methods were supported by low level evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians in primary care can incorporate transabdominal and transrectal ultrasound or uroflowmetry in the evaluation of men with LUTS but should not solely rely on these methods as the diagnostic accuracy is insufficient and reliability remains insufficiently researched. Low-to-moderate levels of evidence for most assessment methods were due to methodological shortcomings and inconsistency in the studies. This highlights the need for better study designs in this domain.

Assessment instruments of movement quality in patients with non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and selection of instruments.

BACKGROUND: Observing and analyzing movement quality (MQ) in patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) is important in the clinical reasoning of primary care physiotherapists and exercise therapists. However, there is no standardized form of assessment. RESEARCH QUESTION: which MQ domains are measured with which instruments, and which activities are relevant, appropriate and methodologically sound for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP? METHODS: The study had three phases. In phase 1 we conducted a systematic review in PubMed, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus of literature published until October 2018. The selected studies measured MQ domains with instruments that enabled us to 1) compare MQ in self-paced dynamic activities of patients with NS-LBP and healthy controls, and/or 2) determine change over time of MQ in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 2 we established relevant dynamic activities to assess in patients with NS-LBP. In phase 3 we determined appropriateness and methodological qualities of the selected instruments. RESULTS: Thirty cross-sectional and three pre-post-test studies were eligible. The instruments consisted of complex (n = 19) and simple (n = 7) instrumented motion analysis systems and standardized observational tests (n = 7). We identified three domains representative for MQ: range of motion (ROM), inter-segmental coordination, and whole-body movements. In these domains, patients with NS-LBP significantly differed from healthy controls, respectively 7/12, 12/13 and 13/20 studies. Moreover, ROM and whole-body movements significantly improved over time in patients with NS-LBP (3/3 studies). Based on phase 3, we concluded that none of the instruments are appropriate to assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP in primary care. SIGNIFICANCE: Forward bending, lifting, and walking seem the most relevant activities to evaluate in patients with NS-LBP. However, we found no suitable instruments to measure ROM, inter-segmental coordination, or whole-body movements as determinants of MQ in these activities in daily practice. We therefore recommend such an instrument be developed.