Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review

Tricia Hayton, Anita Gross*, Annalie Basson, Ken Olson, Oliver Ang, Nikki Milne, Jan Pool

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction:

Risks and benefits of spinal manipulations and mobilization in pediatric populations are a concern to the public, policymakers, and international physiotherapy governing organizations. Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) used in the literature on these topics are contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the quality of clinician-reported and performance-based COAs identified by a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations across diverse medical conditions. 

Method and analysis: 

Electronic databases, clinicaltrials.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative synthesis was performed using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to select studies, perform data extraction, and assess risk of bias. Data synthesis used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to determine the certainty of the evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?). 

Results: 

Four of 17 identified COAs (77 studies, 9653 participants) with supporting psychometric research were classified as: Performance-based outcome measures: AIMS–Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n = 51); or: Clinician-reported outcome measures: LATCH–Latch, Audible swallowing, Type of nipple, Comfort, Hold (n = 10), Cobb Angle (n = 15), Postural Assessment (n = 1). AIMS had an overall sufficient (+) rating with high certainty evidence, and LATCH had an overall sufficient (+) rating with moderate certainty of evidence. For the Cobb Angle and Postural Assessment, the overall rating was indeterminate (?) with low or very low certainty of evidence, respectively.

Conclusion:

The AIMS and LATCH had sufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for certain pediatric medical conditions. Further validation studies are needed for other COAs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-29
Number of pages29
JournalJournal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this