Checks and balances: a meta-analysis on the known-groups validity of functional postural control tests in children.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-05 DOI:10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08187-5
Jorn Ockerman, Silke Velghe, Anke VAN Bladel, Edouard Auvinet, Jelle Saldien, Katrijn Klingels, Lynn Bar-On, Evi Verbecque
{"title":"Checks and balances: a meta-analysis on the known-groups validity of functional postural control tests in children.","authors":"Jorn Ockerman, Silke Velghe, Anke VAN Bladel, Edouard Auvinet, Jelle Saldien, Katrijn Klingels, Lynn Bar-On, Evi Verbecque","doi":"10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08187-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pediatric physical therapists commonly treat children with postural control deficits. Ideally, pediatric functional postural control tests should therefore be able to identify postural control deficits in children with various disorders. Despite a plethora of available tests, evidence for their validity - especially known-groups - remains scarce. This review aims to determine the known-group validity of available functional postural control tests to differentiate various pediatric pathological groups of different ages from their typically developing (TD) peers.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were systematically searched (last update: February 2023; PROSPERO: CRD42023408982). Forty case-control studies with a pathological pediatric sample (N.=1331) and TD peers (N.=1889) were included and selected for data-extraction and -analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the SIGN checklist and level of evidence was scored using GRADE. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) for the various test types and subclassified based on pathology and/or age.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>When compared with TD peers, children with underlying pathologies performed significantly worse on pediatric functional postural control test batteries (SMD=-2.21), the Timed Up and Go Test and variants (SMD=2.30), the One Leg Stance test and variants (SMD=-2.14), while the Reach tests showed a smaller difference (SMD=-1.19). Subclassification within the meta-analyses showed that pathology was an influencing factor for the test batteries and the one leg stance test and variants. Age was an influencing factor for the reach tests. None of the included functional postural control tests exceeded a low level of evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pediatric functional postural control tests that assess multiple aspects of postural control (such as test batteries) seem to offer higher known-groups validity than single-task tests (e.g. reach tests). The underlying pathology has a larger impact on the validity of these tests than age. There remains an overall low level of evidence for the known-groups validity of pediatric functional postural control tests indicating the need for research with more homogenous groups and norm reference data.</p>","PeriodicalId":12044,"journal":{"name":"European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine","volume":" ","pages":"656-670"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11407102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08187-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pediatric physical therapists commonly treat children with postural control deficits. Ideally, pediatric functional postural control tests should therefore be able to identify postural control deficits in children with various disorders. Despite a plethora of available tests, evidence for their validity - especially known-groups - remains scarce. This review aims to determine the known-group validity of available functional postural control tests to differentiate various pediatric pathological groups of different ages from their typically developing (TD) peers.

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were systematically searched (last update: February 2023; PROSPERO: CRD42023408982). Forty case-control studies with a pathological pediatric sample (N.=1331) and TD peers (N.=1889) were included and selected for data-extraction and -analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the SIGN checklist and level of evidence was scored using GRADE. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) for the various test types and subclassified based on pathology and/or age.

Evidence synthesis: When compared with TD peers, children with underlying pathologies performed significantly worse on pediatric functional postural control test batteries (SMD=-2.21), the Timed Up and Go Test and variants (SMD=2.30), the One Leg Stance test and variants (SMD=-2.14), while the Reach tests showed a smaller difference (SMD=-1.19). Subclassification within the meta-analyses showed that pathology was an influencing factor for the test batteries and the one leg stance test and variants. Age was an influencing factor for the reach tests. None of the included functional postural control tests exceeded a low level of evidence.

Conclusions: Pediatric functional postural control tests that assess multiple aspects of postural control (such as test batteries) seem to offer higher known-groups validity than single-task tests (e.g. reach tests). The underlying pathology has a larger impact on the validity of these tests than age. There remains an overall low level of evidence for the known-groups validity of pediatric functional postural control tests indicating the need for research with more homogenous groups and norm reference data.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制衡:儿童姿势控制功能测试的已知组有效性荟萃分析。
导言:小儿物理治疗师通常会对存在姿势控制缺陷的儿童进行治疗。因此,理想情况下,儿科功能性姿势控制测试应能识别患有各种疾病的儿童的姿势控制缺陷。尽管有大量可用的测试,但其有效性(尤其是已知组别)的证据仍然很少。本综述旨在确定现有功能性姿势控制测试的已知组别有效性,以区分不同年龄段的各种儿科病理群体与发育正常(TD)的同龄人:系统检索了PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus(最后更新日期:2023年2月;PROSPERO:CRD42023408982)。共纳入了 40 项病理儿科样本(样本数=1331)和 TD 同龄人样本(样本数=1889)的病例对照研究,并对这些研究进行了数据提取和分析。使用 SIGN 检查表评估偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 对证据水平进行评分。随机效应荟萃分析用于估算各种测试类型的集合标准化均值差异(SMD),并根据病理和/或年龄进行细分:与患有TD的同龄儿童相比,患有潜在病症的儿童在儿科功能性姿势控制测试组合(SMD=-2.21)、定时上行测试及变体(SMD=2.30)、单腿站立测试及变体(SMD=-2.14)中的表现明显较差,而在前伸测试中的表现差异较小(SMD=-1.19)。荟萃分析中的子分类显示,病理学是各组测试和单腿站立测试及变体的影响因素。年龄是影响伸展测试的一个因素。纳入的功能性姿势控制测试均未超过低证据水平:结论:与单一任务测试(如伸手测试)相比,评估姿势控制多个方面的小儿功能性姿势控制测试(如测试组合)似乎具有更高的已知组有效性。与年龄相比,潜在病理对这些测试有效性的影响更大。总体而言,儿科功能性姿势控制测试的已知群体有效性证据水平仍然较低,这表明需要对更多同质群体和常模参考数据进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
162
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine publishes papers of clinical interest in physical and rehabilitation medicine.
期刊最新文献
Addressing the gap: stroke-related sarcopenia in Brazil. Behavior change theory and behavior change technique use in cancer rehabilitation interventions: a secondary analysis. The effect of patients' socioeconomic status in rehabilitation centers on the efficiency and performance. A continuum of balance performance between children with developmental coordination disorder, spastic cerebral palsy, and typical development. Efficacy of virtual reality on balance impairment in ataxic cerebral palsy children: randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1