A systematic review of motor control tests in low back pain based on reliability and validity

Schulz, J.; Vitt, Esther; Niemier, Kay

doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.11.005

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Primäre Weitere Ursachen für sekundäre Funktionsstörungen sind eine hohe psychophysische Daueranspannung (z. B. bei Angsterkrankungen) oder Fehlhaltungen bei depressiven Erkrankungen [20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Funktion -Funktionsstörung -Funktionserkrankungunclassified

Faszientraining – nur ein neuer Trend oder sinnvolle Therapieergänzung bei chronischen Erkrankungen des Bewegungssystems?

Niemier¹

2022

Arthritis und Rheuma

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGImmer wieder werden neue Therapieformen für (Schmerz-)Erkrankungen des Bewegungssystems propagiert. Faszientraining ist ein relativ neuer Trend. In der Tat wurde Bindegewebe inklusive der Faszien lange als passive Struktur ohne hohe Relevanz für chronische Schmerzen des Bewegungssystems missachtet. Neuere anatomische, aber auch trainingswissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse zeigen jedoch, dass die Beachtung von Faszien im Präventionssport und in der medizinischen Trainingstherapie ein wichtiges Element sein kann. Einbezogen in ein sinnvolles Trainingsprogramm und einen biopsychosozialen Behandlungsansatz bietet das Faszientraining einen sinnvollen Zusatz zu den etablierten Therapien.

show abstract

Section: Funktion -Funktionsstörung -Funktionserkrankungunclassified

Faszientraining – nur ein neuer Trend oder sinnvolle Therapieergänzung bei chronischen Erkrankungen des Bewegungssystems?

Niemier¹

2022

Arthritis und Rheuma

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

Elsman,

Mokkink,

Abma

et al. 2024

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. Methods One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings. Results A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. Conclusion Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

show abstract

Clinically assessed lumbopelvic sensorimotor control tests in low back pain: are they actually valid? A systematic review according to COSMIN guidelines

Brandt,

Danneels,

Meirezonne

et al. 2024

Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of motor control tests in low back pain based on reliability and validity

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Faszientraining – nur ein neuer Trend oder sinnvolle Therapieergänzung bei chronischen Erkrankungen des Bewegungssystems?

Faszientraining – nur ein neuer Trend oder sinnvolle Therapieergänzung bei chronischen Erkrankungen des Bewegungssystems?

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

Clinically assessed lumbopelvic sensorimotor control tests in low back pain: are they actually valid? A systematic review according to COSMIN guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About