Palmer Keith T
MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Apr;81(5):575-93. doi: 10.1007/s00420-007-0254-4. Epub 2007 Oct 2.
To investigate approaches adopted to diagnose soft tissue rheumatic disorders of the upper limb (ULDs) in vibration-exposed populations and in other settings, and to compare their methodological qualities.
Systematic searches were made of the Medline, Embase, and CINAHL electronic bibliographic databases, and of various supplementary sources (textbooks, reviews, conference and workshop proceedings, personal files). For vibration-exposed populations, qualifying papers were scored in terms of the provenance of their measuring instruments (adequacy of documentation, standardisation, reliability, criterion-related and content validity). Similar criteria were applied to general proposals for whole diagnostic schemes, and evidence was collated on the test-retest reliability of symptom histories and clinical signs.
In total, 23 relevant reports were identified concerning vibration-exposed populations--21 involving symptoms and 9 involving examination/diagnosis. Most of the instruments employed scored poorly in terms of methodological quality. The search also identified, from the wider literature, more than a dozen schemes directed at classifying ULDs, and 18 studies of test-retest reliability of symptoms and physical signs in the upper limb. Findings support the use of the standardised Nordic questionnaire for symptom inquiry and suggest that a range of physical signs can be elicited with reasonable between-observer agreement. Four classification schemes rated well in terms of content validity. One of these had excellent documentation, and one had been tested for repeatability, agreement with an external reference standard, and utility in distinguishing groups that differed in disability, prognosis and associated risk factors.
Hitherto, most studies of ULDs in vibration-exposed populations have used custom-specified diagnostic methods, poorly documented, and non-stringent in terms of standardisation and supporting evidence of reliability and/or validity. The broader literature contains several question sets and procedures that improve upon this, and offer scope in vibration-exposed populations to diagnose ULDs more systematically.
调查在振动暴露人群及其他环境中用于诊断上肢软组织风湿性疾病(ULD)的方法,并比较其方法学质量。
对Medline、Embase和CINAHL电子文献数据库以及各种补充来源(教科书、综述、会议和研讨会论文集、个人档案)进行系统检索。对于振动暴露人群,根据测量工具的来源(文献记录的充分性、标准化、可靠性、与标准相关的效度和内容效度)对符合条件的论文进行评分。将类似标准应用于整个诊断方案的一般建议,并整理症状史和临床体征重测信度的证据。
总共确定了23篇关于振动暴露人群的相关报告——21篇涉及症状,9篇涉及检查/诊断。所使用的大多数工具在方法学质量方面得分较低。该检索还从更广泛的文献中确定了十几个针对ULD分类的方案,以及18项关于上肢症状和体征重测信度的研究。研究结果支持使用标准化的北欧问卷进行症状询问,并表明可以引出一系列体格检查体征,观察者间一致性较好。有四个分类方案在内容效度方面评分较高。其中一个有出色的文献记录,一个经过了重复性、与外部参考标准一致性以及区分残疾、预后和相关危险因素不同的组的效用测试。
迄今为止,大多数关于振动暴露人群中ULD的研究使用的是定制的诊断方法,文献记录不完善,在标准化以及可靠性和/或效度的支持证据方面不严格。更广泛的文献中有几个问题集和程序对此有所改进,并为振动暴露人群更系统地诊断ULD提供了空间。