Performance-based outcome measures for assessing physical capacity in patients with pulmonary embolism: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 50 % of patients surviving a pulmonary embolism (PE) report persisting shortness of breath, reduced physical capacity and psychological distress. As the PE population is heterogeneous compared to other cardiovascular patient groups, outcome measures for assessing physical capacity traditionally used in cardiac populations may not be reliable for the PE population as a whole. This scoping review aims to 1) map performance-based outcome measures (PBOMs) used for assessing physical capacity in PE research, and 2) to report the psychometric properties of the identified PBOMs in a PE population. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. RESULTS: The systematic search of five databases identified 4585 studies, of which 243 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 185 studies focused on a subgroup of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Ten different PBOMs were identified in the included studies. The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) were the most commonly used, followed by the (Modified) Bruce protocol and Incremental Shuttle Walk test. No studies reported psychometric properties of any of the identified PBOMs in a PE population. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of studies measuring physical capacity within PE populations has increased significantly over the past 5-10 years. Still, not one study was identified, reporting the validity, reliability, or responsiveness for any of the identified PBOMs in a PE population. This should be a priority for future research in the field.

Comparison of important factors to patients recovering from pulmonary embolism and items covered in patient-reported outcome measures: A mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Up to 50 % of patients recovering from pulmonary embolism (PE) experience negative long-term outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in identifying what matters to patients. We aimed to identify PROMs used in clinical studies and recommended by the International Consortium of Health Outcomes (ICHOM) and compare individual items with factors considered important by patients recovering from PE. METHODS: This was a convergent mixed-methods systematic review, including quantitative studies, using PROMs and qualitative studies with non-cancer-related PE patients. Items from each PROM and qualitative findings were categorised using an International Classification of Function linking process to allow for integrated synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 68 studies using 34 different PROMs with 657 items and 13 qualitative studies with 408 findings were included. A total of 104 individual ICF codes were used, and subsequently sorted into 20 distinct categories representing patient concerns. Identified PROMs were found to adequately cover 17/20 categories, including anxiety, fear of bleeding, stress, depression, dizziness/nausea, sleep disturbance, pain, dyspnea, fatigue, activity levels, family and friends, socializing, outlook on life, and medical treatment. PROMs from the ICHOM core set covered the same categories, except for dizziness/nausea. CONCLUSIONS: No single PROM covered all aspects assessed as important by the PE population. PROMs recommended in the ICHOM core set cover 16/20 aspects. However, worrisome thoughts, hypervigilance around symptoms, and uncertainty of illness were experienced by patients with PE but were not covered by PROMS.

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load.

OBJECTIVE: We explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity in anterior-posterior and mediolateral directions under four sensory and cognitive conditions: (i) eyes open and counting forward, (ii) eyes closed and counting forward, (iii) eyes closed and counting forward in multiples of seven, and (iv) eyes closed and counting backward in multiples of seven. The participants were stratified into low-/medium- (n = 53) and high-risk (n = 9) subgroups. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences among patients with LBP stratified as having a low/medium or high risk of chronicity in postural stability and sensory and cognitive conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired postural stability is important to consider when treating patients with LBP. However, we found that these impairments were not strongly aggravated in groups with a higher risk of chronicity, as measured using the STarT Back Tool.

The use of posture-correcting shirts for managing musculoskeletal pain is not supported by current evidence - a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The concept of bad posture being a dominant driver of pain is commonly held belief in the society. This may explain the significant attention supportive clothing such as posture-correcting shirts has recently gained in Scandinavia and the USA. The aim of this scoping review was to present an overview and synthesis of the available evidence for the use of posture-correcting shirts aimed at reducing pain or postural discomfort and optimising function/posture. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for literature investigating the effect of posture-correcting shirts on musculoskeletal pain or function. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature. Results of the searches were evaluated by two independent reviewers in three separate steps based on title, abstract and full text. For data synthesis, the population, intervention, comparator and outcome were extracted. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool or the RoB 2.0 tool for individually randomized, parallel group trials. The overall confidence in the literature was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: A total of 136 articles were identified and six of these were included in the review. These studies were heterogeneous with regards to aims, outcomes and methods, presenting contrasting results. The overall findings were that posture-correcting shirts change posture and subjectively have a positive effect on discomfort, energy levels and productivity. The quality of the included literature was poor to fair with only one study being of good quality. The risk of bias was serious or critical for the included studies. Overall, this resulted in very low confidence in available evidence. An important limitation of all studies was that they were conducted in pain-free individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The contrasting findings and the low quality of current literature, questions the intended effect of posture-correcting shirts and whether the changes it creates are in fact useful for clinical practice. Moreover, the findings are contrasted by the available evidence regarding posture and pain with a particular focus on whether this management strategy may have a detrimental effect on people living with musculoskeletal pain. A major limitation to the existing literature on the effect of posture-correcting shirts is that no studies have investigated their effect in clinical populations. IMPLICATIONS: Based on the available literature and the major limitation of no studies investigating clinical populations, there is no good quality evidence to support recommendation of posture-correcting shirts as a management strategy for musculoskeletal pain. Promotion of this product may reinforce the inaccurate and unhelpful message that poor posture leads to pain. The efficacy of such garments should be tested in clinical populations and not only in pain-free individuals, to assess whether there is any meaningful benefit of this management approach. Until then, the use of posture-correcting shirts for musculoskeletal pain is not supported by current evidence.