TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality and usability of clinical assessments of static standing and sitting posture
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Woldendorp, Kees H
AU - Kleinbergen, Jonas F E
AU - Boonstra, Anne M
AU - de Schipper, Antoine W
AU - Arendzen, J Hans
AU - Reneman, Michiel F
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - BACKGROUND: A validated method to assess sitting and standing posture in a clinical setting is needed to guide diagnosis, treatment and evaluation of these postures. At present, no systematic overview of assessment methods, their clinimetric properties, and usability is available.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide such an overview and to interpret the results for clinical practice.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to international guidelines. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias, clinimetric values of the assessment methods, and their usability. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE).RESULTS: Out of 27,680 records, 41 eligible studies were included. Thirty-two assessment instruments were identified, clustered into five categories. The methodological quality of 27 (66%) of the articles was moderate to good. Reliability was most frequently studied. Little information was found about validity and none about responsiveness.CONCLUSIONS: Based on a moderate level of evidence, a tentative recommendation can be made to use a direct visual observation method with global posture recorded by a trained observer applying a rating scale.
AB - BACKGROUND: A validated method to assess sitting and standing posture in a clinical setting is needed to guide diagnosis, treatment and evaluation of these postures. At present, no systematic overview of assessment methods, their clinimetric properties, and usability is available.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide such an overview and to interpret the results for clinical practice.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to international guidelines. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias, clinimetric values of the assessment methods, and their usability. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE).RESULTS: Out of 27,680 records, 41 eligible studies were included. Thirty-two assessment instruments were identified, clustered into five categories. The methodological quality of 27 (66%) of the articles was moderate to good. Reliability was most frequently studied. Little information was found about validity and none about responsiveness.CONCLUSIONS: Based on a moderate level of evidence, a tentative recommendation can be made to use a direct visual observation method with global posture recorded by a trained observer applying a rating scale.
KW - Occupational medicine
KW - observation
KW - musculoskeletal diseases
KW - posture
KW - reliability
KW - validity
KW - ENTIRE BODY ASSESSMENT
KW - QUICK EXPOSURE CHECK
KW - INTERRATER RELIABILITY
KW - MUSCULOSKELETAL COMPLAINTS
KW - ERGONOMIC INTERVENTION
KW - IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS
KW - SEATED POSTURE
KW - RISK-FACTORS
KW - GRADE
KW - WORK
U2 - 10.3233/BMR-200073
DO - 10.3233/BMR-200073
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34366318
SN - 1053-8127
VL - 35
SP - 223
EP - 238
JO - Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
JF - Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
IS - 2
ER -