blandaltman: A command to create variants of Bland–Altman plots

Bland–Altman plots can be useful in paired data settings such as measurement-method comparison studies. A Bland–Altman plot has differences, percentage differences, or ratios on the y axis and a mean of the data pairs on the x axis, with 95% limits of agreement indicating the central 95% range of differences, percentage differences, or ratios. This range can vary with the mean. We introduce the community-contributed blandaltman command, which uniquely in Stata can 1) create Bland–Altman plots featuring ratios in addition to differences and percentage differences, 2) allow the limits of agreement for ratios and percentage differences to vary as a function of the mean, and 3) add confidence intervals, prediction intervals, and tolerance intervals to the plots

Reproducibility of cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain

OBJECTIVE: To assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reproducibility of the measurement of active Range of Motion (ROM) in patients with neck pain using the Cybex Electronic Digital Inclinometer-320 (EDI-320). DESIGN: In an outpatient clinic in a primary care setting 32 patients with at least 2 weeks of pain and/or stiffness in the neck were randomly assessed, in a test- retest design with blinded raters using a standardized measurement protocol. Main outcome measure: Cervical flexion-extension, lateral flexion and rotation was assessed. RESULTS: Reliability expressed by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was 0.93 (lateral flexion) or higher for intra-rater reliability and 0.89 (lateral flexion) or higher for inter-rater reliability. The 95% limits of agreement for intra-rater agreement, expressing the range of the differences between two ratings were -2.5 +/- 11.1 degrees for flexion-extension, -0.1 +/- 10.4degrees for lateral flexion and -5.9 +/- 13.5 degrees for rotation. For inter-rater agreement the limits of agreement were 3.3 +/- 17.0 degrees for flexion-extension, 0.5 +/- 17.0degrees for lateral flexion and -1.3 +/- 24.6 degrees for rotation. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the intra-rater reproducibility and the inter-rater reproducibility were good. We recommend to compare the reproducibility and clinical applicability of the EDI-320 inclinometer with other cervical ROM measures in symptomatic patients. (aut.ref.

Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

Background: The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5-18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties. Methods: The scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box ("worst score counts"). Results: Specific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the "worst score counts" algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties. Conclusions: Based on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties. © The Author(s) 2011

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The general aim of our review is to provide information that may assist the clinician in making decisions about appropriate management in patients with low-back pain and leg pain suspected of having radicular pain and radiculopathy due to disc herniation. More specifically, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic performance of tests performed during physical examination in the identification of radicular pain and radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back and leg pain. The secondary objective of this review is to assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of tests performed during physical examination, in particular the type of reference standard, health care setting, spectrum of disease, and study design

Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Manchester foot pain and disability index

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI, 19 items) was developed to measure functional limitations, pain and appearance for patients with foot pain and is frequently used in both observational studies and randomised controlled trials. A Dutch version of the MFPDI was developed. The aims of this study were to evaluate all the measurement properties for the Dutch version of the MFPDI and to evaluate comparability to the original version. METHOD: The MFPDI was translated into Dutch using a forward/backward translation process. The dimensionality was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement properties were evaluated per subscale according to the COSMIN taxonomy consisting of: reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error), validity (structural validity, content validity and cross-cultural validity comparing the Dutch version to the English version) responsiveness and interpretation. RESULTS: The questionnaire consists of three scales, measuring foot function, foot pain and perception. The reliability of the foot function scale is acceptable (Cronbach’s α > 0.7, ICC = 0.7, SEM = 2.2 on 0-18 scale). The construct validity of the function and pain scale was confirmed and only the pain scale contains one item with differential item functioning (DIF). The responsiveness of the function and pain scale is moderate when compared to anchor questions. CONCLUSION: Results using the Dutch MFPDI version can be compared to results using the original version. The foot function sub-scale (items 1-9) is a reliable and valid sub-scale. This study indicates that the use of the MFPDI as a longitudinal instrument might be problematic for measuring change in musculoskeletal foot pain due to moderate responsiveness

Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews

Fifteen years ago, what was to become OMERACT met for the first time in The Netherlands to discuss ways in which the multitude of outcomes in assessments of the effects of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis might be standardised. In Trials, Tugwell et al have described the need for, and success of, this initiative [1] and Cooney and colleagues have set out their plans for a corresponding initiative for ulcerative colitis [2]. Why do we need such initiatives? What\u27s the problem? And are these and other initiatives the solution

Dutch translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)

Background: The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit was developed to measure outcomes of social care in England. In this study, we translated the four level self-completion version (SCT-4) of the ASCOT for use in the Netherlands and performed a cross-cultural validation. Methods: The ASCOT SCT-4 was translated into Dutch following international guidelines, including two forward and back translations. The resulting version was pilot tested among frail older adults using think-aloud interviews. Furthermore, using a subsample of the Dutch ACT-study, we investigated test-retest reliability and construct validity and compared response distributions with data from a comparable English study. Results: The pilot tests showed that translated items were in general understood as intended, that most items were reliable, and that the response distributions of the Dutch translation and associations with other measures were comparable to the original English version. Based on the results of the pilot tests, some small modifications and a revision of the Dignity items were proposed for the final translation, which were approved by the ASCOT development team. The complete original English version and the final Dutch translation can be obtained after registration on the ASCOT website (http://www.pssru.ac.uk/ascot). Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the Dutch translation of the ASCOT is valid, reliable and comparable to the original English version. We recommend further research to confirm the validity of the modified Dutch ASCOT translation

Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study.

Background: Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. Objectives: This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. Method: Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. Results: QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). Conclusions: This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this