Spinal cord · 2025
Spinal cord independence measure evidence-based recommendation: a systematic review of measurement properties.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Foschi Clarissa Volpato Sombrio, de Lima Aline, Michaelsen Stella Maris, Ilha Jocemar
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review (PROSPERO CRD42022297211).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) versions and to derive recommendations.
METHODS: We followed the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and adapted criteria for non-PROM to conduct the review and derive SCIM evidence-based recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Lilacs databases were searched (November 2025). Studies reporting the development or evaluation of any SCIM measurement properties were included. We used the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool and the Criteria for Good Measurement Properties to critically appraise the studies and to summarise and rate the measurement properties. Evidence levels were established using a modified GRADE system.
RESULTS: The review included 50 articles, reporting five SCIM versions and 127 individual measurement property studies. The SCIM SR presented low-level evidence for sufficient content validity. The SCIM II, III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient criterion validity and indeterminate structural validity. The SCIM III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The SCIM SR also presented high-level evidence for sufficient reliability. Moderate-level evidence for sufficient reliability was presented by SCIM II, III and IV, and for measurement error by SCIM III and SR.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the SCIM versions fully fit all the COSMIN criteria for recommendation. The SCIM III, SR, and IV present the highest evidence levels for most measurement properties. Additionally, the SCIM SR meets the criteria for potential recommendation for having at least low-level evidence for sufficient content validity.
SPONSORSHIP: UDESC.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) versions and to derive recommendations.
METHODS: We followed the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and adapted criteria for non-PROM to conduct the review and derive SCIM evidence-based recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Lilacs databases were searched (November 2025). Studies reporting the development or evaluation of any SCIM measurement properties were included. We used the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool and the Criteria for Good Measurement Properties to critically appraise the studies and to summarise and rate the measurement properties. Evidence levels were established using a modified GRADE system.
RESULTS: The review included 50 articles, reporting five SCIM versions and 127 individual measurement property studies. The SCIM SR presented low-level evidence for sufficient content validity. The SCIM II, III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient criterion validity and indeterminate structural validity. The SCIM III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The SCIM SR also presented high-level evidence for sufficient reliability. Moderate-level evidence for sufficient reliability was presented by SCIM II, III and IV, and for measurement error by SCIM III and SR.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the SCIM versions fully fit all the COSMIN criteria for recommendation. The SCIM III, SR, and IV present the highest evidence levels for most measurement properties. Additionally, the SCIM SR meets the criteria for potential recommendation for having at least low-level evidence for sufficient content validity.
SPONSORSHIP: UDESC.