Quality and usability of clinical assessments of static standing and sitting posture: A systematic review
Authors:
Woldendorp, K. H., Kleinbergen, J. F. E., Boonstra, A. M., de Schipper, A. W., Arendzen, J. H., and Reneman, M. F.
Abstract:
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.
