4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation Instruments for Assessing Back Pain in Athletes: A Systematic Review Protocol

      methods-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Back pain is a public health problem that affects adolescents and adults worldwide. However, studies on back pain present inconsistent findings in part due to the use of different instruments, especially for athletes. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review protocol was to map the existing evidence on such tools. The systematic review will be conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases, Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus will be searched. This review includes studies that investigated prevalence, incidence, and other variables. Titles and abstracts will be selected. Two independent reviewers will read the articles carefully and discrepancies, if any, will be dealt with by a third reviewer. All steps will be completed with Rayyan for systematic reviews and the methodological quality will be analyzed with a COSMIN checklist. Discussion: This systematic review will gather evidence on tools that assess back pain in athletes. The findings may indicate the most appropriate tools for assessing back pain. They will contribute to better reliability, safe measurements, and help to standardize a comparison tool between different studies. They will also assist in the development of specific tools for athletes. Registration: This review was submitted and registered under CRD42020201299 in PROSPERO.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life

            (1990)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

              Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Healthcare (Basel)
                Healthcare (Basel)
                healthcare
                Healthcare
                MDPI
                2227-9032
                18 December 2020
                December 2020
                : 8
                : 4
                : 574
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Samambaia Campus, Goiânia 74690-900, Brazil; silviaborges@ 123456discente.ufg.br
                [2 ]Department of Public Health, Instituto Federal Goiano, Ceres 76300-000, Brazil; regina.silva@ 123456ifg.edu.br (R.M.F.S.); michele.fernandes@ 123456estudante.ifgoiano.edu.br or priscilla.noll@ 123456usp.br (P.R.E.S.N.)
                [3 ]Universitat de València, 46010 València, Spain; vicente.minana@ 123456uv.es (V.M.-S.); manuel.monfort@ 123456uv.es (M.M.-P.)
                [4 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-000, Brazil
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9829-0020
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1613-9280
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2114-1294
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3181-2170
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-0718
                Article
                healthcare-08-00574
                10.3390/healthcare8040574
                7766916
                33561044
                80e6dd2f-4734-4942-a3f9-b524c14cbde9
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 04 November 2020
                : 12 December 2020
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                athletes,sportsmen,back pain,instrument,questionnaire
                athletes, sportsmen, back pain, instrument, questionnaire

                Comments

                Comment on this article