Suppr超能文献

一项针对有无非特异性脊柱疼痛人群的屈伸比测量性能的系统评价和荟萃分析。

A systematic review and meta analysis of measurement properties for the flexion relaxation ratio in people with and without non specific spine pain.

机构信息

Division of Population Health and Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.

Department of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 8;14(1):3260. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52900-z.

Abstract

This review sought to identify, critically appraise, compare, and summarize the literature on the reliability, discriminative validity and responsiveness of the flexion relaxation ratio (FRR) in adults (≥ 18 years old) with or without spine pain (any duration), in either a clinical or research context. The review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27EDF ) and follows COSMIN, PRISMA, and PRESS guidelines. Six databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2022. The search string was developed by content experts and a health services librarian. Two pairs of reviewers independently completed titles/abstracts and full text screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (COSMIN RoB Toolkit). At all stages, discrepancies were resolved through consensus meetings. Data were pooled where possible with a three-level random effects meta-analyses and a modified GRADE assessment was used for the summary of findings. Following duplicate removal, 728 titles/abstracts and 219 full texts were screened with 23 included in this review. We found, with moderate certainty of evidence, that the cervical FRR has high test-retest reliability and lumbar FRR has moderate to high test-retest reliability, and with high certainty of evidence that the cervical and lumbar FRR can discriminate between healthy and clinical groups (standardized mean difference - 1.16 [95% CI - 2.00, - 0.32] and - 1.21 [- 1.84, - 0.58] respectively). There was not enough evidence to summarize findings for thoracic FRR discriminative validity or the standard error of measurement for the FRR. Several studies used FRR assuming responsiveness, but no studies were designed in a way that could confirm responsiveness. The evidence supports adequate reliability of FRR for the cervical and lumbar spine, and discriminative validity for the cervical and lumbar spine only. Improvements in study design and reporting are needed to strengthen the evidence base to determine the remaining measurement properties of this outcome.

摘要

本综述旨在识别、批判性评价、比较和总结有关屈伸比(FRR)在有或无脊柱疼痛(任何持续时间)的成年人(≥18 岁)的可靠性、判别有效性和反应性的文献,无论是在临床还是研究背景下。综述方案已在开放科学框架(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27EDF)上注册,并遵循 COSMIN、PRISMA 和 PRESS 指南。从成立到 2022 年 6 月 1 日,六个数据库进行了检索。检索字符串由内容专家和健康服务图书馆员共同制定。由两对评审员独立完成纳入的标题/摘要和全文筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估(COSMIN RoB 工具包)。在所有阶段,通过共识会议解决差异。在可能的情况下,采用三级随机效应荟萃分析进行数据汇总,并使用修改后的 GRADE 评估对研究结果进行总结。在重复去除后,筛选了 728 个标题/摘要和 219 篇全文,其中 23 篇被纳入本综述。我们发现,具有中等确定性的证据表明,颈椎 FRR 具有高的测试-重测可靠性,腰椎 FRR 具有中到高度的测试-重测可靠性,并且具有高确定性的证据表明,颈椎和腰椎 FRR 可以区分健康组和临床组(标准化均数差-1.16[95%CI-2.00,-0.32]和-1.21[-1.84,-0.58])。没有足够的证据总结胸椎 FRR 判别有效性或 FRR 的测量误差标准的研究结果。有几项研究使用 FRR 假设反应性,但没有研究以能够确认反应性的方式进行设计。证据支持 FRR 在颈椎和腰椎的可靠性和判别有效性,仅在颈椎和腰椎。需要改进研究设计和报告,以加强证据基础,确定该结果的其余测量特性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/79cb/10853169/c8c73d652098/41598_2024_52900_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验