Outcome measures in the management of gluteal tendinopathy: a systematic review of their measurement properties

Abstract

ObjectiveEvaluate properties of outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy.DesignMultistage scoping/systematic review.Data sourcesCochrane, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS were searched (December 2021) to identify measures used to evaluate gluteal tendinopathy. Measures were mapped to the core health domains for tendinopathy. Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed were searched (December 2021) for studies evaluating measurement properties of gluteal tendinopathy outcome measures captured in the initial search. Both reviews included studies that evaluated a treatment in participants with gluteal tendinopathy, diagnosed by a professional. Consensus-based-Standards for the Selection of Health Instruments methodology were followed—including bias assessment and synthesis of findings.ResultsSix studies reported on the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment—Gluteal Tendinopathy (VISA-G). One study reported on the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)—activities of daily living (ADL) and Sport.The VISA-G had moderate-quality evidence of sufficient construct validity (known group) and responsiveness (pre–post intervention), low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, measurement error, comprehensibility and insufficient construct validity (convergent), and very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensiveness, relevance and responsiveness (comparison with other outcome measures).Both the HOS(ADL) and HOS(Sport) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, relevance and insufficient construct validity and comprehensiveness. The HOS(ADL) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and insufficient measurement error. The HOS(Sport) had very low quality evidence of inconsistent comprehensibility and sufficient measurement error.ConclusionRigorously validated outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy are lacking. The VISA-G is the preferred available option to capture the disability associated with gluteal tendinopathy.

ICON 2020—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: the development of a core outcome set for gluteal tendinopathy

“…A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the outcome measurements 14. This identified two outcome measurements (the VISA-G (all translations)) and Hip Outcome Score-Brazil that have been studied for clinimetric properties in people with GT.…”

“…HPs, and patients with GT participated in the study. Six stages were undertaken: (1) a scoping review to identify relevant outcome measures (reported separately with stage 3), (2) an online survey of the HPs’ views on the Truth and Feasibility of the outcome measures in line with the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) guidelines,13 (3) an assessment of the clinimetric properties of identified outcome measures (reported separately14), (4) a second online survey of the HPs which included the results of the former two stages and sought their opinion as to which measurements should be included in the COS, (5) a patient focus group to provide patient insight and (6) an online HP consensus meeting that considered the views of patients and HPs (figure 1).…”

“…Data extraction from a scoping review informed health professional (HP) online survey 1 and a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinimetrics of identified gluteal tendinopathy outcome measures 14. The results from the HP online survey 1 and the systematic review and meta-analysis was provided to HP survey 2.…”

“…To identify all outcome measurements that have been used in research of GT, the steering committee performed a scoping review, following the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute 16. Details of this review (stage 1) have previously been published 14. Briefly, the review addressed the question of ‘What outcome measures have been used in evaluating people with gluteal tendinopathy?’.…”

“…HPs were also invited to suggest any outcome measure not presented that they thought worthy of consideration. Then a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of the reduced list of outcome measurements was performed 14. A report of the results of the systematic review was provided to participants in the second online survey for their further consideration regarding the appropriateness of each measurement for inclusion in a COS-GT.…”