↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review protocol to evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of function within adult neuro-rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review protocol to evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of function within adult neuro-rehabilitation
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0076-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon Pike, Natasha Anne Lannin, Anne Cusick, Kylie Wales, Lynne Turner-Stokes, Stephen Ashford

Abstract

Spasticity in the upper limb is common after acquired brain impairment and may have a significant impact on the ability to perform meaningful daily activities. Traditionally, outcome measurement in spasticity rehabilitation has focused on impairment, however, improvements in impairments do not necessarily translate to improvements in an individual's ability to perform activities or engage in life roles. There is an increasing need for outcome measures that capture change in activity performance and life participation. We will conduct a systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure upper limb functional outcomes (activity performance and participation) in patients with spasticity. Assessments (n = 27) will be identified from a recently published systematic review of assessments that measure upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation for adults with focal spasticity, and a systematic review of each assessment will then be conducted. The databases MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE will be searched from inception. Search strategies will include the name of the assessment and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) published search strategy for identifying studies of measurement properties. The methodological rigour of the testing of the psychometric quality of instruments will be undertaken using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definitions of impairment, activity and participation will be used for content analysis of items to determine the extent to which assessments are valid measures of activity performance and life participation. We will present a narrative synthesis on the psychometric properties and utility of all instruments and make recommendations for assessment selection in practice. This systematic review will present a narrative synthesis on the psychometric properties and utility of assessments used to evaluate function in adults with upper limb focal spasticity. Recommendations for assessment selection in practice will be made which will aid clinicians, managers and funding bodies to select an instrument fit for purpose. Importantly, appropriate assessment selection will provide a mechanism for capturing how applicable to everyday life the outcomes from individualised rehabilitation programs for the upper limb really are. PROSPERO CRD42014013190.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Psychology 5 6%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,531,481
of 23,270,775 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,519
of 2,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,972
of 265,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,270,775 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.