Measurement properties of cervical joint position error in people with and without neck pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Proprioception can be impaired in people with neck pain. The cervical joint position sense test, which measures joint position error (JPE), is the most common test used to assess neck proprioception. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the measurement properties of this test for the assessment of people with and without neck pain. METHODS: This systematic review was registered prospectively on Prospero (CRD42020188715). It was designed using the COSMIN guidelines and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Two reviewers independently searched Medline, Embase, SportDiscus, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to the 24th July 2022 with an update of the search conducted until 14th of October 2023. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The updated criteria for good measurement properties were used to rate individual studies and then the overall pooled results. The level of evidence was rated by two reviewers independently using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in this review, 13 reporting absolute JPE and 2 reporting constant JPE. The measurement properties assessed were reliability, measurement error, and validity. The measurement of JPE showed sufficient reliability and validity, however, the level of evidence was low/very low for both measurement properties, apart from convergent validity of the constant JPE, which was high. CONCLUSION: The measure of cervical JPE showed sufficient reliability and validity but with low/very low levels of evidence. Further studies are required to investigate the reliability and validity of this test as well as the responsiveness of the measure.

Reliability and criterion validity of handheld dynamometry for measuring trunk muscle strength in people with and without chronic non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating trunk strength is an important aspect of the physical examination of people with low back pain (LBP). Thus, reliable, valid, and easily applied measurement tools are needed to quantify trunk muscle strength and monitor changes in response to interventions. OBJECTIVES: To determine within-day and between-day test re-test reliability and criterion validity of a handheld dynamometer (HHD) to evaluate maximum isometric trunk strength in people with chronic LBP and asymptomatic individuals. DESIGN: Reliability and criterion validity study. METHODS: Twenty adult participants with chronic, non-specific LBP and 35 asymptomatic individuals participated. Isometric trunk flexion, extension, and rotation strength were evaluated with the HHD (Active force 2) and the within-day and between-day reliability were determined with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) and the standard error of the measurements (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and the limits of agreement (LOA) using Bland-Altman plots. Criterion validity was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients to compare HHD measurements to isokinetic dynamometry for both isometric trunk flexion and extension strength. RESULTS: Good to excellent within-day and between-day reliability was observed for people with LBP and asymptomatic individuals with (ICC2,1) of 0.73-0.93 and 0.62-0.92 respectively. A moderate to strong correlation was found between measurements with the HHD and the isokinetic dynamometer with a correlation of r = 0.68-0.78 and r = 0.56-0.59 for people with LBP and asymptomatic participants respectively. CONCLUSION: A HHD is a reliable, valid, and clinically applicable tool for the measurement of trunk strength in adults with and without chronic LBP.

Measures of neck muscle strength and their measurement properties in adults with chronic neck pain-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of neck muscle strength is common during the assessment of people with chronic neck pain (CNP). This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of neck muscle strength measures in people with CNP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: This systematic review followed a PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021233290). Electronic databases MEDLINE (OVID interface), CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss via (EBSCO interface), EMBASE (OVID interface), and Web of Science were searched from inception to 21 June 2021. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist) were conducted independently by two reviewers. The overall strength of evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: From 794 records, nine articles were included in this review which concerned six different neck strength outcome measures. All studies evaluated reliability and one evaluated construct validity. The reliability of neck strength measures ranged from good to excellent. However, the risk of bias was rated as doubtful/inadequate for all except one study and the overall certainty of evidence was rated low/very low for all measures except for the measurement error of a handheld dynamometer. CONCLUSION: A multitude of measures are used to evaluate neck muscle strength in people with CNP, but their measurement properties have not been fully established. Further methodologically rigorous research is required to increase the overall quality of evidence.

Practicable performance-based outcome measures of trunk muscle strength and their measurement properties: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of muscle strength is frequently used as part of the physical examination process, with decreased trunk muscle strength reported in individuals with spinal disorders (e.g., low back pain). Access to practicable performance-based outcome measures (PBOM) to monitor patients' progress in spinal rehabilitation is essential. Knowledge of the psychometric properties of the available practicable PBOM for trunk strength evaluation is therefore needed to inform practitioners and further research. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence on the measurement properties of practicable measures of trunk muscle strength in adults with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Following a published and registered protocol [PROSPERO CRD42020167464], databases were searched from the database inception date up to 30th of June 2021. Citations and grey literature were also searched. Eligibility criteria comprised: 1) studies which examined the psychometric properties of the trunk strength outcome measures, 2) included adults ≥ 18 years, either asymptomatic or with spinal musculoskeletal pain. Non-English language studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality and synthesized the data from included studies according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: From 34 included studies, 15 different PBOMs were identified that have been investigated for reliability and validity, none evaluated responsiveness. In asymptomatic individuals, high quality evidence supports intra-rater reliability of digital-loading cells and moderate quality evidence supports the criterion validity of the hand-held dynamometer. Very low quality evidence exists for the reliability and validity estimates of testing tools among individuals with spinal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underpin a cautious recommendation for the use of practicable PROMs to evaluate muscle strength in individuals with spinal pain in clinical practice due to the level of evidence and the heterogeneity of the protocols used. Further high quality research to explore the psychometric properties of the practicable PBOMs with detailed methodology is now needed.

Measures of trunk muscle strength and their measurement properties: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis of clinical measures.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal musculoskeletal conditions, including low back and neck pain, are leading causes of disability globally. The trunk muscles, which comprise muscles in the thoracic and lumbar regions, are essential for functional activities, necessitating mobility, motor control and strength. To investigate the effectiveness of interventions directed at improving trunk muscle strength, it is essential to have valid, reliable and responsive performance-based outcome measures (PBOM). While isokinetic dynamometry is considered the gold-standard PBOM, the associated costs, size/weight and operational complexity of this equipment preclude its use in a clinical setting. There is, therefore, a need to evaluate the measurement properties of alternative accessible measures of trunk strength. This systematic review therefore aims to investigate the measurement properties of PBOM of trunk muscle strength measures appropriate for use in a clinical setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been designed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. CINAHL, Web of Science, Pedro, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscuss will be searched systematically from the database start date up to 16 April 2020, along with reference checking and the grey literature searching. Eligibility criteria include studies investigating measurement properties of PROM for trunk muscle strength for use in a clinical setting in adults with and without spinal musculoskeletal complaints. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of the studies through screening process of titles, abstract and the full text. Both reviewers will assess the risk of bias using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments risk-of-bias tool and then extract the data from included studies. The overall quality of the included studies will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis will be carried out if meta-analysis is not applicable. Findings from this systematic review will aid clinicians and practitioners working in the field for example, sport, in using the most appropriate PBOM to measure trunk muscle strength. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics application is needed as there are no patient data in this study. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020167464.