TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of clinical measurement instruments assessing scapular function
T2 - Insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for assessing scapular posture, movement, and dysfunction-a systematic review
AU - D'HONDT, NORMAN E.
AU - POOL, JAN J.M.
AU - KIERS, HENRI
AU - TERWEE, CAROLINE B.
AU - VEEGER, H. E.J.
N1 - Funding Information: 1Neuromechanics Section, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2Lifestyle and Health Research Group, Institute of Human Movement Studies, Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. This review was partially funded by the Dutch Research Council (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) with a PhD grant. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Norman Eduard D’hondt, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: norman. dhondt@gmail.com U Copyright ©2020 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of measurement instruments evaluating scapular function. DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties. LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2019. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies published in Dutch, English, or German were included when they evaluated at least 1 of the measurement properties of interest. No restrictions were made regarding participants' health status. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality using the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed data. Quality of evidence was graded by measurement property for each distinctive type of measurement. RESULTS: Thirty-one measurement instruments in 14 studies were categorized into instruments to measure scapular posture and movement, and to assess scapular dyskinesis. Quality of evidence was at most moderate for 4 instruments with respect to criterion validity. Of these, criterion validity for instruments measuring scapular protraction/retraction posture and rotation angles up to 120° of thoracohumeral elevation was sufficient. Criterion validity for instruments measuring asymmetrical scapular posture, range of motion, and the lateral scapular slide test was insufficient. Quality of evidence for measurement properties of all other instruments was graded lower. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for the clinical examination of scapular function. Measurement instruments to assess scapular dyskinesis are prone to misinterpretation and should therefore not be used as such.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of measurement instruments evaluating scapular function. DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties. LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2019. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies published in Dutch, English, or German were included when they evaluated at least 1 of the measurement properties of interest. No restrictions were made regarding participants' health status. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality using the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed data. Quality of evidence was graded by measurement property for each distinctive type of measurement. RESULTS: Thirty-one measurement instruments in 14 studies were categorized into instruments to measure scapular posture and movement, and to assess scapular dyskinesis. Quality of evidence was at most moderate for 4 instruments with respect to criterion validity. Of these, criterion validity for instruments measuring scapular protraction/retraction posture and rotation angles up to 120° of thoracohumeral elevation was sufficient. Criterion validity for instruments measuring asymmetrical scapular posture, range of motion, and the lateral scapular slide test was insufficient. Quality of evidence for measurement properties of all other instruments was graded lower. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for the clinical examination of scapular function. Measurement instruments to assess scapular dyskinesis are prone to misinterpretation and should therefore not be used as such.
KW - Movement
KW - Physical examination
KW - Review
KW - Shoulder pain
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095405064&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85095405064&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.9265
DO - https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.9265
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33131391
SN - 0190-6011
VL - 50
SP - 632
EP - 641
JO - Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy
JF - Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy
IS - 11
ER -