Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChamorro-Moriana, Gema
dc.contributor.authorPérez Cabezas, Verónica 
dc.contributor.authorEspuny-Ruiz, Fernando
dc.contributor.authorTorres-Enamorado, Dolores
dc.contributor.authorRidao-Fern andez, Carmen
dc.contributor.otherEnfermería y Fisioterapiaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-14T07:33:30Z
dc.date.available2022-09-14T07:33:30Z
dc.date.issued2022-11
dc.identifier.issn1877-0665
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10498/27314
dc.description.abstractBackground: : Functional rating scales allow clinicians to document and quantify alterations and progression of recovery processes. There is neither awareness of numerous knee scales nor are they easy to find or compare to select the most suitable.Objectives: : We aimed to compile validated knee functional rating tools and analyze the methodological quality of their validation studies. Also, we aimed to provide an operational document of the outcome measures addressing descriptions of parameters, implementations, instructions, interpretations and languages, to identify the most appropriate for future interventions.Methods: : A systematic review involved a search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, and Dialnet databases from inception through September 2020. The main inclusion criteria were available functional rating scales/questionnaires/indexes for knees and validation studies. Methodological quality was analyzed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias (COSMIN-RB).Results: : We selected 73 studies. The studies investigated 41 knee rating tools (general, 46%, and specific, 54%) and 71 validations, including 29,742 individuals with knee disorders. QUADAS-2 obtained the best results in patient selection and index test (applicability section). COSMIN-RB showed the highest quality in construct validity (most analyzed metric property). The specific tools were mainly designed for prosthesis and patellofemoral and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. More considered issues were specific function (93%), especially gait, pain/sensitivity (81%), and physical activity/sports (56%).Conclusions and implications: : We conducted a necessary, useful, unlimited-by-time and feasible compilation of validated tools for assessing knee functional recovery. The methodological quality of the validations was limited. The best validations were for the Copenhagen Knee Range of Motion Scale in osteoarthritis and arthroplasties, Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living and Lysholm Knee Score for general knee disorders and the Tegner Activity Score for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The operational document for the scales provides necessary data to identify the most appropriate.(c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)es_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherELSEVIERes_ES
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.sourceAnnals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol. 65, Núm. 6es_ES
dc.subjectKnee functiones_ES
dc.subjectKnee injurieses_ES
dc.subjectScalees_ES
dc.subjectValidation studyes_ES
dc.subjectReliabilityes_ES
dc.subjectDiagnosises_ES
dc.titleAssessing knee functionality: Systematic review of validated outcome measureses_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rehab.2021.101608


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
This work is under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional