Measures of neck muscle strength and their measurement properties in adults with chronic neck pain-a systematic review.
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 01 2023
16 01 2023
Historique:
received:
06
12
2021
accepted:
21
12
2022
entrez:
15
1
2023
pubmed:
16
1
2023
medline:
18
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Measurement of neck muscle strength is common during the assessment of people with chronic neck pain (CNP). This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of neck muscle strength measures in people with CNP. This systematic review followed a PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021233290). Electronic databases MEDLINE (OVID interface), CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss via (EBSCO interface), EMBASE (OVID interface), and Web of Science were searched from inception to 21 June 2021. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist) were conducted independently by two reviewers. The overall strength of evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. From 794 records, nine articles were included in this review which concerned six different neck strength outcome measures. All studies evaluated reliability and one evaluated construct validity. The reliability of neck strength measures ranged from good to excellent. However, the risk of bias was rated as doubtful/inadequate for all except one study and the overall certainty of evidence was rated low/very low for all measures except for the measurement error of a handheld dynamometer. A multitude of measures are used to evaluate neck muscle strength in people with CNP, but their measurement properties have not been fully established. Further methodologically rigorous research is required to increase the overall quality of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Measurement of neck muscle strength is common during the assessment of people with chronic neck pain (CNP). This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of neck muscle strength measures in people with CNP.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
This systematic review followed a PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021233290). Electronic databases MEDLINE (OVID interface), CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss via (EBSCO interface), EMBASE (OVID interface), and Web of Science were searched from inception to 21 June 2021. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist) were conducted independently by two reviewers. The overall strength of evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS
From 794 records, nine articles were included in this review which concerned six different neck strength outcome measures. All studies evaluated reliability and one evaluated construct validity. The reliability of neck strength measures ranged from good to excellent. However, the risk of bias was rated as doubtful/inadequate for all except one study and the overall certainty of evidence was rated low/very low for all measures except for the measurement error of a handheld dynamometer.
CONCLUSION
A multitude of measures are used to evaluate neck muscle strength in people with CNP, but their measurement properties have not been fully established. Further methodologically rigorous research is required to increase the overall quality of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36642710
doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02162-5
pii: 10.1186/s13643-022-02162-5
pmc: PMC9841635
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Phys Ther. 2005 Jun;85(6):556-64
pubmed: 15921476
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Oct 31;13:215
pubmed: 23114092
Clin Rehabil. 2002 Dec;16(8):851-8
pubmed: 12501947
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Mar;39(3):179-87
pubmed: 19273911
Eur Spine J. 2006 Jun;15(6):834-48
pubmed: 15999284
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Jul 1;24(13):1343-8
pubmed: 10404577
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992 Jul-Aug;15(6):343-9
pubmed: 1431617
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Man Ther. 2011 Feb;16(1):80-6
pubmed: 20696610
Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49
pubmed: 20169472
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Nov;88(11):1441-5
pubmed: 17964885
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Oct 19;9:142
pubmed: 18928568
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;93(11):2042-8
pubmed: 22546536
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2163-96
pubmed: 23245607
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997 Sep;20(7):468-75
pubmed: 9310902
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):828-37
pubmed: 16490395
J Man Manip Ther. 2019 Sep;27(4):222-228
pubmed: 30935321
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Jul;47(7):A1-A83
pubmed: 28666405
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 May 1;25(9):1109-17
pubmed: 10788856
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Jun;102(6):1210-1227
pubmed: 33383030
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug;85(8):1303-8
pubmed: 15295757
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Dec;91(12):1878-83
pubmed: 21112429
JAMA. 2003 May 21;289(19):2509-16
pubmed: 12759322
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999 Mar;14(3):217-9
pubmed: 10619109
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020 Apr;56(2):191-196
pubmed: 32043853
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997 Oct;26(4):192-9
pubmed: 9310910
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Dec 3;20(1):293
pubmed: 33267819
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Sep 22;10:82
pubmed: 20860789
Physiother Theory Pract. 2017 Apr;33(4):323-330
pubmed: 28379051
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008 Sep;31(7):518-24
pubmed: 18804002