A systematic review of motor control tests in low back pain based on reliability and validity

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.

METHODS

One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.

RESULTS

A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.

CONCLUSION

Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Clinically assessed lumbopelvic sensorimotor control tests in low back pain: are they actually valid? A systematic review according to COSMIN guidelines

BACKGROUND

Impairments in lumbopelvic sensorimotor control (SMC) are thought to be one of the underlying mechanisms for the recurrence and persistence of low back pain (LBP). As such, lumbopelvic SMC tests are frequently included in the clinical examination of patients with LBP.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate convergent and known-groups validity of clinically assessed lumbopelvic SMC tests in patients with LBP according to COSMIN guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched until December 2023. Studies examining convergent or known-groups validity of lumbopelvic SMC tests assessed via inspection or palpation in patients with LBP were included. Known-groups validity had to be assessed between patients with LBP and pain-free persons. Two independent researchers appraised risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE) using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and modified GRADE approach, respectively. Results for known-groups validity were reported separately for single tests and test-clusters.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (946 participants) were included. Three studies investigated convergent validity of three single tests. Regarding known-groups validity, six studies evaluated six single tests and four studies investigated two test-clusters. For only one test, both convergent and known-groups were assessed. The QoE for tests showing sufficient convergent or known-groups validity was (very) low, whereas QoE was moderate for single tests or test-clusters with insufficient known-groups validity.

CONCLUSION

All clinically assessed lumbopelvic SMC tests with sufficient convergent or known-groups validity had (very) low QoE. Therefore, test outcomes should be interpreted cautiously and strong reliance on these outcomes for clinical decision-making can currently not be recommended.