MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283079134 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzac078

Measurement Properties of Remotely or Self-Administered Lower Extremity Mobility Performance Measures in Adults: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4283079134 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashley Morgan, Diane Bégin, Jennifer J. Heisz, Ada Tang, Lehana Thabane, Julie Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General Hospital
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineData extractionInterpretabilityPhysical therapyMEDLINEPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychological interventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: For individuals who face barriers to care assessment, there is a need for remote administration or self-administration of physical performance measures that assess mobility to determine current functional status and to monitor and predict future changes in functional status. The primary purpose of this review is to evaluate the available measurement properties of scores for remotely or self-administered lower extremity mobility performance measures in adults. This review also outlines the test procedures and population suitability of these measures. METHODS: Data sources were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid AMED, and Cochrane CENTRAL-which were searched from inception to January 26, 2021-and the reference lists of relevant studies. Two individuals independently screened studies that assessed at least 1 prespecified measurement property of scores for a remote and/or self-administered lower extremity physical performance measure assessing mobility in an adult population. Two individuals independently extracted data on study characteristics, measurement properties, feasibility, and interpretability using piloted extraction forms. The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) Risk of Bias tool was used to assess methodological quality. Data were qualitatively summarized, and results were compared against COSMIN's criteria for good measurement properties. Level of evidence was determined using COSMIN's modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fourteen studies detailing 19 outcome measures were included. Many studies displayed "sufficient" measurement properties based on COSMIN's criteria; however, risk of bias for most of the included studies was rated adequate or doubtful. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers can consider the measurement properties of scores and feasibility of different approaches presented in this review when determining how to assess or monitor mobility in adult populations. IMPACT: Assessing mobility via remote or self-administered physical performance measures in adult populations appears to be feasible using a variety of methods including simple tools (chair, stopwatch), videoconferencing, and smartphone applications. This strategy may be particularly valuable for self-management of chronic conditions and decreasing barriers to accessing care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.268
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207