RESUMO
Rehabilitation is a discipline increasingly growing around the world due to several reasons, but probably the most important one is aging population and chronicity. A need to harmonize education has been identified, and although several International organizations such as the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) and the International Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ISPRM) have defined standards, given the quick growth of new evidence and assessment methods an urge to establish new ones arises. Functional assessment and tools used to do so are key in rehabilitation processes. This comprises self-reported questionnaires, conventional clinical evaluation but more notably high technology assessment methods, such as movement analysis systems, posturography, different types of dynamometers and kinesiologic electromyography among others. More recently, a wide range of wearable systems has been introduced in patient assessment. This is generating many published protocols as well as reliability and validity studies. The objective of this narrative review is to present main assessment technologies relevant to rehabilitation, its situation of this specific area in pre-graduate and post-graduate rehabilitation educational programs, and to elaborate a formative proposal including technological foundations of assessment and also highlighting the importance of solid reliability and validity of assessment methods comprehension. The main objective of this proposal is to provide basic knowledge about rehabilitation and methodologies for outcomes evaluation, including new technologies, to all health professionals, but especially to those who work or will work in the field of Rehabilitation.
RESUMO
Introducción: la Ley 35/2015 valora daños y perjuicios en los accidentes de circulación y trata de garantizar una respuesta igualitaria ante situaciones idénticas. La valoración funcional biomecánica (VFB) es una prueba médica complementaria que aporta objetividad en la evaluación de la cervicalgia postraumática. Este estudio analiza la variabilidad interobservador del sistema de valoración de la Ley 35/2015 y estudia el efecto de la VFB y del perfil del evaluador en la determinación de secuelas.Material y métodospara ello, 49 profesionales de la valoración del daño corporal evaluaron 5 casos clínicos de accidentados con cervicalgia postraumática; un mes más tarde, 35 de los anteriores valoraron los mismos casos incluyendo informe de VFB.Resultadoshay una elevada variabilidad en la determinación de los días de perjuicio personal (coeficientes kappa entre 0,04 y 0,073) con o sin VFB; una elevada variabilidad interobservador en la valoración de las secuelas en los casos sin VFB (coeficientes kappa entre 0,022 y 0,044), que mejora discretamente con VFB (coeficientes kappa entre 0,128 y 0,26), aún mostrando concordancia débil. El resultado de la VFB tiene influencia en la determinación de las secuelas (p < 0,01), no así el perfil del evaluador. Más del 79,4% de los evaluadores encontraron útiles las pruebas para poner de manifiesto o confirmar sintomatología, recuperación o simulación.Conclusionesexiste variabilidad en la aplicación de la Ley 35/2015 para la valoración de los accidentados de tráfico con cervicalgia postraumática entre los profesionales del daño corporal. La VFB resulta de utilidad para los evaluadores y tiene influencia en la determinación de las secuelas. (AU)
Introduction: Law 35/2015 assesses damages in traffic accidents and tries to guarantee an equal response to identical situations. Biomechanical functional assessment (BFA) is a complementary medical test that provides objectivity in the evaluation of post-traumatic neck pain. This study analyzes the interobserver variability of the assessment system defined by Law 35/2015 and studies the effect of having BFA tests and the profile of the evaluator in determining sequelae.Materials and methodsTo do this, 49 professionals in the assessment of bodily injury evaluated 5 clinical cases of accident victims with post-traumatic neck pain; a month later, 35 of them assessed the same cases including a BFA report.ResultsThe results show high variability in determining the days of personal injury (Kappa coefficients between 0.04 and 0.073) with or without BFA; high interobserver variability in the assessment of sequelae in cases without BFA (Kappa coefficients between 0.022 and 0.044), which slightly improves with BFA (Kappa coefficients between 0.128 and 0.26), even showing weak concordance. The BFA has an influence on the determination of sequelae (p < 0.01), but the profile of the evaluator does not. More than 79.4% of the evaluators found the BFA tests useful to reveal or to confirm symptoms, recovery, or simulation.ConclusionsThere is variability in the application of Law 35/2015 for the assessment of traffic accidents among professionals of bodily injury. The BFA is useful for evaluators and influences the determination of sequelae. (AU)
