Measurement Properties of the Most Common Performance-Based Measures of Physical Function in CKD: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is wide heterogeneity in physical function tests for clinical and research use in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this review was to identify and evaluate the most frequent physical function measures in terms of clinimetric properties. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2022, identifying studies which evaluated a clinimetric property (validity, reliability, measurement error, responsiveness) of an objectively measured performance-based physical function outcome. All ages and any stage of CKD were included. The most common tests (defined as having 4 or more studies) are described in terms of reliability and validity. Results: 50 studies with 21,315 participants were included, the majority were HD. Clinimetric properties were reported for 22 physical function tests; the following were most common: Hand grip strength (HGS), six minute walk test (6MWT), V02 peak, short physical performance battery (SPPB), gait speed, Sit to stand test-60 (STS-60), timed up and go (TUG), STS-5 and incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT). Very few studies reported properties of criterion (ISWT) and responsiveness (V02 peak and 6MWT). Conclusions: The SPPB demonstrates high GRADE evidence for construct validity, reliability and measurement error. The next best tests include: 6MWT and TUG with high GRADE for reliability and measurement error. This review is an important step towards standardizing a core outcome set of tools to measure physical function in research and clinical settings for CKD. - Physical function tests GRADE evidence Physical function test (number of studies) Construct Validity Reliability Measurement Error HGS (13) Low Low Moderate 6MWT (11) Low High High SPPB (10) High High High Gait speed (8) Moderate Moderate Very Low STS-5 (8) High Moderate Low V02 peak (8) Low Low Low TUG (7) Moderate High High STS-60 (6) Moderate High Moderate STS-30(4) Low High Moderate ISWT (4) Moderate Low Low
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".