Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28013200›Full record

SynthesisRheumatology (Oxford, England)2017

Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review.

Sionnadh McLean, Melanie A Holden, Tanzila Potia, Melanie Gee, Ross Mallett, Sadiq Bhanbhro, Helen Parsons, Kirstie Haywood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sionnadh McLeanFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Melanie A HoldenArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele.
Tanzila PotiaFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Melanie GeeCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Ross MallettFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Sadiq BhanbhroCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Helen ParsonsClinical Trials Unit.
Kirstie HaywoodRoyal College of Nursing Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method: A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards. Results: Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure. Conclusion: The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyObservationPatient ComplianceSurveys and QuestionnairesHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesPatient Acceptance of Health Careacceptabilityadherenceexercisemeasurementmusculoskeletalphysical activityqualitysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28013200
PMCPMC5410983

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.