Physical Functioning in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures and Their Measurement Properties.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2021
15 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
27
1
2021
medline:
1
9
2021
entrez:
26
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A systematic review. To summarize evidence on measurement properties of Outcome Measures (OM) used to assess physical functioning in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). The AIS is a common spine deformity in those aged 10 to 18 years old. Associated health problems (e.g., back pain) significantly impact the quality of life (QoL). One important domain in QoL is physical functioning, which can be measured with patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), performance-based outcome measures (PBOM), and body structure and function OM. Adequate measurement properties of OM are important for precision in research and practice. A two-staged search strategy was performed on electronic databases up to December 2019. Search one revealed a list of OM was used for physical functioning assessment in AIS. Search two identified studies that evaluated the measurement properties of OM in AIS; using the list identified in search one. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility, risk of bias assessment (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments [COSMIN] checklist), and performed data extraction. The level of evidence was established using a modified GRADE approach. Search one yielded: 28 PROM, 20 PBOM, and 10 body structure and function OM. Search two revealed: 16 measurement properties studies for PROM, one for PBOM, and three for body structure and function measures. Construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness of most PROM has been established in AIS, but not content validity or internal consistency (moderate evidence). Construct validity was sufficient for the Timed Up and Go test and body structure and function measures (very low to low evidence). Currently, physical functioning is evaluated with a variety of measures in AIS. The majority of measurement properties studies evaluated PROM with a paucity of information on measurement properties of PBOM and body structure and function OM. Based on COSMIN methodology, none of the OM identified in this review can be recommended with confidence in individuals with AIS.Level of Evidence: 2.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
A systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To summarize evidence on measurement properties of Outcome Measures (OM) used to assess physical functioning in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
The AIS is a common spine deformity in those aged 10 to 18 years old. Associated health problems (e.g., back pain) significantly impact the quality of life (QoL). One important domain in QoL is physical functioning, which can be measured with patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), performance-based outcome measures (PBOM), and body structure and function OM. Adequate measurement properties of OM are important for precision in research and practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A two-staged search strategy was performed on electronic databases up to December 2019. Search one revealed a list of OM was used for physical functioning assessment in AIS. Search two identified studies that evaluated the measurement properties of OM in AIS; using the list identified in search one. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility, risk of bias assessment (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments [COSMIN] checklist), and performed data extraction. The level of evidence was established using a modified GRADE approach.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Search one yielded: 28 PROM, 20 PBOM, and 10 body structure and function OM. Search two revealed: 16 measurement properties studies for PROM, one for PBOM, and three for body structure and function measures. Construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness of most PROM has been established in AIS, but not content validity or internal consistency (moderate evidence). Construct validity was sufficient for the Timed Up and Go test and body structure and function measures (very low to low evidence).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, physical functioning is evaluated with a variety of measures in AIS. The majority of measurement properties studies evaluated PROM with a paucity of information on measurement properties of PBOM and body structure and function OM. Based on COSMIN methodology, none of the OM identified in this review can be recommended with confidence in individuals with AIS.Level of Evidence: 2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33496543
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003969
pii: 00007632-202109150-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E985-E997Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 2013; 7:3–9.
Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 2008; 371:1527–1537.
Hamad A, Ahmed EB, Tsirikos AI. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comprehensive approach to aetiology, diagnostic assessment and treatment. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31:343–349.
Makino T, Kaito T, Kashii M, et al. Low back pain and patient-reported QOL outcomes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis without corrective surgery. Springerplus 2015; 4:397.
Leszczewska J, Czaprowski D, Pawłowska P, et al. Evaluation of the stress level of children with idiopathic scoliosis in relation to the method of treatment and parameters of the deformity. Sci World J 2012; 2012:538409.
Durmala J, Tomalak W, Kotwicki T. Function of the respiratory system in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: reasons for impairment and methods of evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008; 135:237–245.
Du C, Yu J, Zhang J, et al. Relevant areas of functioning in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: The patients’ perspective. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48:806–814.
Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, et al. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96:84–92.
Tomey KM, Sowers MR. Assessment of physical functioning: a conceptual model encompassing environmental factors and individual compensation strategies. Phys Ther 2009; 89:705–714.
Bastrom TP, Marks MC, Yaszay B, et al. Prevalence of postoperative pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the association with preoperative pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:1848–1852.
LaMontagne LL, Hepworth JT, Cohen F, et al. Adolescent scoliosis: effects of corrective surgery, cognitive-behavioral interventions, and age on activity outcomes. Appl Nurs Res 2004; 17:168–177.
Reiman MP, Manske RC. The assessment of function: how is it measured? A clinical perspective. J Man Manip Ther 2011; 19:91–99.
Bean JF, Olveczky DD, Kiely DK, et al. Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors? Phys Ther 2011; 91:1804–1811.
Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018; 27:1171–1179.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:737–745.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018; 27:1147–1157.
Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the scoliosis research society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25:2381–2386.
Glattes RC, Burton DC, Lai SM, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:1778–1784.
Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24:1435–1440.
de Kleuver M, Faraj SSA, Holewijn RM, et al. Defining a core outcome set for adolescent and young adult patients with a spinal deformity. Acta Orthop 2017; 88:612–618.
Faraj SSA, van Hooff ML, Holewijn RM, et al. Measuring outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review to identify current strengths, weaknesses and gaps in patient-reported outcome measures. Eur Spine J 2017; 26:2084–2093.
Alamrani S, Rushton A, Gardner A, et al. Outcome measures evaluating physical functioning and their measurement properties in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e034286.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000097.
Cobb J. Outline for the study of scoliosis. Instr Course Lect AAOS 1948; 5:261–275.
Santé Omdl. Organization WH, Staff WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. ICFed.Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
Prowse A, Pope R, Gerdhem P, et al. Reliability and validity of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric clinical evaluation methods of postural asymmetry measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2016; 25:450–466.
Langensiepen S, Semler O, Sobottke R, et al. Measuring procedures to determine the Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2013; 22:2360–2371.
Navarro I, Rosa BND, Candotti CT. Anatomical reference marks, evaluation parameters and reproducibility of surface topography for evaluating the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gait Posture 2019; 69:112–120.
Wade R, Yang H, McKenna C, et al. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system. Eur Spine J 2013; 22:296–304.
Fong DY, Lee CF, Cheung KM, et al. A meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of school scoliosis screening. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:1061–1071.
Wu HD, Liu W, Wong MS. Reliability and validity of lateral curvature assessments using clinical ultrasound for the patients with scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2020; 29:717–725.
He C, Wong MS. Spinal flexibility assessment on the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:E250–E258.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported outcome measures (PROMs). User Manual 2018.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:401–406.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20:37–46.
Feise RJ, Donaldson S, Crowther ER, et al. Construction and validation of the scoliosis quality of life index in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30:1310–1315.
Parent EC, Hill D, Moreau M, et al. Score distribution of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index questionnaire in different subgroups of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:1767–1777.
Bastrom TP, Bartley C, Marks MC, et al. Postoperative perfection: ceiling effects and lack of discrimination with both SRS-22 and -24 outcomes instruments in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40:E1323–E1329.
Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28:70–73.
Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28:74–78.
Parent EC, Hill D, Mahood J, et al. Discriminative and predictive validity of the scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire in management and curve-severity subgroups of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:2450–2457.
Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, And Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:2079–2083.
Verma K, Lonner B, Toombs CS, et al. International utilization of the SRS-22 instrument to assess outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: what can we learn from a medical outreach group in Ghana? J Pediatr Orthop 2014; 34:503–508.
Berliner JL, Verma K, Lonner BS, et al. Discriminative validity of the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire among five curve-severity subgroups of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 2013; 13:127–133.
Kelly MP, Lenke LG, Sponseller PD, et al. The minimum detectable measurement difference for the Scoliosis Research Society-22r in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison with the minimum clinically important difference. Spine J 2019; 19:1319–1323.
Fedorak GT, Larkin K, Heflin JA, et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcomes measurement information system is equivalent to scoliosis research Society-22 in assessing health status in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:E1206–E1210.
Roberts DW, Savage JW, Schwartz DG, et al. Male-female differences in Scoliosis Research Society-30 scores in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:E53–E59.
Lubicky JP, Hanson JE, Riley EH. Instrumentation constructs in pediatric patients undergoing deformity correction correlated with Scoliosis Research Society scores. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:1692–1700.
Sarwahi V, Wendolowski S, Gecelter R, et al. When do patients return to physical activities and athletics after scoliosis surgery?: A validated patient questionnaire based study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:167–171.
Lerman JA, Sullivan E, Haynes RJ. The Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and functional assessment in patients with adolescent or juvenile idiopathic scoliosis and congenital scoliosis or kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27:2052–2057. discussion 2057-8.
Gao C-C, Chern J-S, Chang C-J, et al. Center of pressure progression patterns during level walking in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0212161.
Hresko MT, Mesiha M, Richards K, et al. A comparison of methods for measuring spinal motion in female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2006; 26:758–763.
Eyvazov K, Samartzis D, Cheung JPY. The association of lumbar curve magnitude and spinal range of motion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18:51.
Stępień A, Guzek K, Pałdyna B, et al. The Trunk-Pelvis-Hip Angle test is a reliable measurement of the range of the lower trunk-pelvis rotation in adolescents. J Orthop Ther 2018; 10:1124.
Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30:2464–2468.
Monticone M, Carabalona R, Negrini S. Reliability of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities. Eura Medicophys 2004; 40:191–197.
Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, et al. The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29:1676–1680.
Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, et al. Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:E141–E146.
Cheung KM, Senkoylu A, Alanay A, et al. Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:1141–1145.
Li M, Wang CF, Gu SX, et al. Adapted simplified Chinese (mainland) version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:1321–1324.
Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, et al. Polish adaptation of scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:1060–1065.
Beausejour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:623–628.
Lonjon G, Ilharreborde B, Odent T, et al. Reliability and validity of the French-Canadian Version of the Scoliosis Research Society 22 Questionnaire in France. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E26–E34.
Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Johnson J, et al. Reliability and validity of an adapted Thai version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. J Child Orthop 2011; 5:35–40.
Adobor RD, Rimeslatten S, Keller A, et al. Repeatability, reliability, and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire and EuroQol in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:206–209.
Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, et al. Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31:593–597.
Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, et al. Validity and reliability of an adapted german version of scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:818–821.
Antonarakos PD, Katranitsa L, Angelis L, et al. Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of scoliosis research society - 22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Scoliosis 2009; 4:14.
Schlosser TP, Stadhouder A, Schimmel JJ, et al. Reliability and validity of the adapted Dutch version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society 22-item questionnaire. Spine J 2014; 14:1663–1672.
Camarini PM, Rosanova GC, Gabriel BS, et al. The Brazilian version of the SRS-22r questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Braz J Phys Ther 2013; 17:494–505.
Monticone M, Baiardi P, Calabro D, et al. Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:E1412–E1417.
Sathira-Angkura V, Pithankuakul K, Sakulpipatana S, et al. Validity and reliability of an adapted Thai version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:783–787.
Haidar RK, Kassak K, Masrouha K, et al. Reliability and validity of an adapted Arabic version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40:E971–E977.
Mousavi SJ, Mobini B, Mehdian H, et al. Reliability and validity of the persian version of the scoliosis research society-22r questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:784–789.
Danielsson AJ, Romberg K. Reliability and validity of the Swedish Version of the Scoliosis Research Society–22 (SRS-22r) patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:1875–1884.
Scoliosis Research Society web site. SRS-30 Patient Questionnaire. Available at: http://www.srs.org/professionals/outcomes/srs-30.pdf . Accessed March 2020.
Kyrola K, Jarvenpaa S, Ylinen J, et al. Reliability and validity study of the finnish adaptation of scoliosis research society questionnaire version SRS-30. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42:943–949.
Carrico G, Meves R, Avanzi O. Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of an adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of Scoliosis Research Society-30 questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E60–E63.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2018; 27:1159–1170.
Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28:63–69.
Sanders AE, Andras LM, Iantorno SE, et al. Clinically significant psychological and emotional distress in 32% of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine Deform 2018; 6:435–440.