Validity and reliability of outcome measures to assess dysfunctional breathing: a systematic review.

This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of outcome measures that assess dysfunctional breathing (DB) in adults. Studies on developing and evaluating measurement properties to assess DB were included. The study investigated the empirical research published between 1990 and February 2022, with an updated search in May 2023 in the Cochrane Library database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Ovid Medline (full), the Ovid Excerta Medica Database, the Ovid allied and complementary medicines database, the Ebscohost Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The included studies' methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Data analysis and synthesis followed the COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and 10 outcome measures were identified. The psychometric properties of these outcome measures were evaluated using COSMIN. The Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) is the only outcome measure with 'sufficient' ratings for content validity, internal consistency, reliability and construct validity. All other outcome measures did not report characteristics of content validity in the patients' group. The NQ showed high-quality evidence for validity and reliability in assessing DB. Our review suggests that using NQ to evaluate DB in people with bronchial asthma and hyperventilation syndrome is helpful. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties is needed for the remaining outcome measures before considering them for clinical use. CRD42021274960.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: VM and AP are authors of some of the included articles. They were not engaged in evaluating the methodological quality of these articles. They have no other competing interests. The first author (VM) article (TFBS) was included in this review; to mitigate conflict of interest and risk of bias, only CR investigated the articles related to TFBS.