Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the knee outcome survey - activities of daily living scale.

PURPOSE: The Knee Outcome Survey - Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) is a joint-specific questionnaire measuring symptoms and functional limitations experienced by individuals with painful knee disorders. The original version of the KOS-ADLS has been shown to be reliable, valid and responsive to change. The purpose of this study was to perform a translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the KOS-ADLS into Italian and to assess its reliability and validity. METHODS: In accordance with standard procedures, the original version of the KOS-ADLS was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Italian (KOS-ADLS-I). Then, the KOS-ADLS-I was administered to 150 patients with knee disorders. A subsample of patients compiled the KOS-ADLS-I again after five/seven days later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Symptoms and function-oriented questionnaires were also completed to evaluate construct validity. Structural validity (Explanatory Factor Analysis [EFA]), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]), measurement error (Standard Error of the Measurement [SEM], Minimal Detectable Change [MDC]), and construct validity (hypothesis testing) were assessed. RESULTS: The cross-cultural adaptation procedure revealed no major problems. EFA revealed a unidimensional structure. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.976) and the test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.990, 95%CI: 0.980-0.995) with low measurement error (SEM = 2.6 points; MDC = 7.1 points). The construct validity resulted to be satisfactory, as 100% a-priori hypothesis were met. CONCLUSIONS: The KOS-ADLS-I is a reliable and valid questionnaire for the assessment of symptoms and functional limitations in individuals with musculoskeletal knee disorders and it can be used in clinical practice and research.

Physiotherapists' knowledge of and adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations for ankle sprains management: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) is a common and burdensome injury. However, the quality of its management is scant. Nowadays, physiotherapy management of musculoskeletal diseases seems to be generally not based on research evidence. Studies that investigated the knowledge-to-practice gap in LAS management are yet to be carried out. Therefore, this research investigated physiotherapists' knowledge of and adherence to LAS Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations. METHODS: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey structured in three sections. The first section collected demographic data. The second section showed two clinical cases (with positive and negative Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), respectively). The participants indicated which treatments they would adopt to manage them. Participants were classified as 'following', 'partially following', 'partially not following' and 'not following' the CPGs and recommendations. In the third section, participants expressed their agreement with different CPG and recommendation statements through a 1-5 Likert scale. RESULTS: In total, 483 physiotherapists (age: 34 ± 10; female 38%, male 61.5%, other 0.5%) answered the survey: 85% completed the first two sections, 76% completed all three sections. In a case of acute LAS with negative OAR, 4% of the participants were considered as 'following' recommended treatments, 68% as 'partially following', 23% as 'partially not following', and 5% as 'not following'. In a case of acute LAS with positive OAR, 37% were considered 'following' recommended treatments, 35% as 'partially following', and 28% as 'not following'. In the third section, the consensus was achieved for 73% of the statements. CONCLUSION: This study showed that although there is a good knowledge about first-line recommended treatments, a better use of CPGs and recommendations should be fostered among physiotherapists. Our results identify an evidence-to-practice gap in LAS management, which may lead to non-evidence-based practice behaviors.