What is the reliability and construct validity for passive hip range of motion measurements in adults?
Creators: name: Katayama, Orion
name: Howarth, Samuel
name: Côté, Pierre
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Medicine and Health Sciences

description: Research Question. What is the test-retest reliability for passive hip rotation range of motion measurements in adults? Protocol This systematic review protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). (1) a) Introduction i. Objectives (item #7) Our objective is to determine the test-retest reliability of passive hip rotation range of motion measurements in adults. b) Methods i. Eligibility (item #8) Design: Systematic review of the literature Population: Adults (aged ≥ 18). Outcome: We will target studies that report on the test-retest reliability for passive hip rotation range of motion measurements. Passive hip rotation range of motion is movement that is applied manually by an assessor, where the joint motion occurs from an external force in the assessment of either internal or external hip rotation. Study designs/characteristics: Eligible studies must meet the following criteria: 1) English language; 2) Published in a peer-reviewed journal; 3) cohort, cross-sectional, or reliability studies. Definitions: Test re-test reliability is the degree to which repeated measures of a stable phenomenon by different people and/or instruments result in similar measurements over time. (2,3) We will exclude: 1) practice guidelines, letters, editorials, commentaries, unpublished manuscripts, dissertations, government reports, books and book chapters, conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, lectures and addresses, consensus development statements, and guideline statements; 2) systematic and non-systematic reviews, and case studies; 3) cadaveric or animal studies; 4) studies that only assess active hip range of motion or fail to report passive joint measurements. (2) ii. Information sources (item #9) We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database to inception to April 30, 2020. iii. Search Strategy (item #10) The electronic databases outlined above will be systematically searched from inception to April 30, 2020. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an experienced health sciences librarian (see Appendix A), which will be reviewed by a second librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies Checklist. (4,5) The search strategy will be developed in MEDLINE and adapted for each database. Search terms will include subject headings (e.g., MeSH in MEDLINE) for each database and free text words for key concepts of hip joint, range of motion, reliability and validity. iv. Study records (items #11a, 11b, 11c) All citations retrieved from the search strategy will be exported to Excel for management, where duplicates will be removed. In stage 1, pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts to classify articles that are relevant, possibly relevant, or irrelevant using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 2, the same reviewers will extract data and results from eligible studies by reviewing full-text manuscripts, where any disagreements will be discussed to reach consensus. A third independent reviewer will resolve any disagreements that cannot reach consensus. Reporting and organization of study records will be based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. (6) v. Data items (item #12) The following will be extracted from each study: 1) primary author and year; 2) study design; 3) setting and subjects; numbers enrolled; 4) case definition 5) assessment tool; versus reference/gold standard 6) measures of test-retest reliability. We will attempt to contact authors if one of the data items are missing. vi. Outcomes and prioritization (item #13) The targeted outcome will be the measurement of passive hip rotation range of motion. vii. Risk of bias in individual studies (item #14) To facilitate the assessment of possible risk of bias, pairs of reviewers will independently appraise eligible studies. Reviewers will assess the risk of bias using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for reliability which will assess the stability of the patients during the measurements, appropriateness of time interval, testing conditions, appropriate statistical analysis, and any other important flaws in study design. (7) Studies will be deemed with an overall risk of bias interpretation as inadequate, doubtful, adequate, or very good. We will report the percent agreement based on independent critical appraisal between paired reviewers. viii. Data synthesis (items #15a, 15b, 15c, 15d) If the clinical, methodological, and statistical characteristics (i.e. I2 statistic) of included studies are sufficiently homogeneous, a meta-analysis will be conducted using a random-effects model. Clinical heterogeneity will be assessed based on the potential differences in population, index tests, reference standards, or outcomes across studies. Methodological heterogeneity will be assessed based on the overall judgement from the COSMIN risk of bias checklist as inadequate, doubtful, adequate, or very good overall rating. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic, where I2 of &lt;25-50% will be considered low to moderate (homogeneous), and &gt;50% considered high (heterogeneous). Results will be stratified by population, index test, reference standard, and measurement (e.g., kappa versus intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability). If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, a systematic narrative synthesis will be provided and summarized in text, tables, and figures to explain the findings of included studies. (8) This will include clinical, methodological, and statistical characteristics for both reliability and validity studies. For reliability, data will be analyzed by examining ICC, Kappa, and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) values. For construct validity, data will be analyzed by examining correlation coefficients. When there is missing data, we will attempt to contact the original authors to obtain relevant missing data. If this cannot be obtained, the study results will be described based on the available information. References 1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015 Dec 1;4(1):1. 2. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Fletcher GS. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins; 2012 Dec 17. 3. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2010 Jul 1;63(7):737-45. 4. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Jul 1;75:40-6. 5. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2009 Sep 1;62(9):944-52. 6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9. 7. Mokkink LB. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2018 Jul. 8. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, Hartmann-Boyce J, Ryan R, Shepperd S, Thomas J, Welch V. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. bmj. 2020 Jan 16;368.