Validación de la versión argentina de la escala Patient Specific Functional Scale en sujetos con trastornos musculoesqueléticos

  • Mariana Rubio Hospital Pirovano
  • Laura Espiño Hospital Pirovano
  • Camila Criscione Hospital Pirovano
  • Sebastián Rodríguez Calvo Hospital Pirovano
  • Mercedes Pirovani Hospital Pirovano
  • Daniela Goldar Hospital Pirovano
  • Santiago Stivanello Hospital Pirovano
  • Antonella Cancino Hospital Pirovano
  • Juan Ignacio Lisazú Hospital Pirovano
  • Noelia Cristiani
  • Franco Ottaviani Hospital Pirovano
  • Gonzalo Guardia Hospital Pirovano
Palabras clave: estudio de validación, medición de resultados informados por el paciente, enfermedades neuromusculares, rendimiento físico funcional, reproducibilidad de los resultados, diferencia mínima clínicamente importante

Resumen

Objetivo: Validar la versión argentina de la escala Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) para trastornos musculoesqueléticos de miembro superior (MS) e inferior (MI) calculando confiabilidad test-retest, validez y sensibilidad al cambio.

Materiales y método: Diseño observacional, prospectivo y longitudinal. En la evaluación inicial, se midió funcionalidad mediante la PSFS, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) y/o Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). En un segundo y tercer tiempo, se administró la escala Global Rating of Change, PSFS y DASH/LEFS.

Resultados: Se reclutaron 352 sujetos entre agosto de 2017 y enero de 2020. Se analizaron 336 sujetos, 165 con patologías de MS y 171 de MI. Confiabilidad test-retest: el coeficiente de correlación intraclase (CCI) para la PSFS global fue de 0,61 (0,48 - 0,71), para MS de 0,70 (0,52 - 0,81) y para MI 0,51 (0,30  0,67). El mínimo cambio detectable (MCD) fue de 2,85, intervalo de confianza 95% (IC 95%). Para la validez de constructo, el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman fue de -0,41 para PSFS/DASH, y de 0,37 para PSFS/LEFS. En cuanto a la sensibilidad al cambio, el área bajo la curva resultó de 0,928 (IC 95% 0,874 - 0,98). Con respecto a la interpretabilidad, el mínimo cambio clínicamente significativo resultó de 2,2 puntos (n= 186), para el subgrupo de MS 2,2 (n= 86) y para el subgrupo de MI 1,71 (n= 100). 

Conclusión: La versión argentina de la PSFS presenta moderada validez de constructo, aceptable confiabilidad test-retest para MS y excelente sensibilidad al cambio. 

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Citas

Barten J, Pisters M, Huisman P, Takken T, Veenhof C. Measurement properties of patient-specific instruments measuring physical function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):590-601.

Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Pozzi GC, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine. 2008;33(22):2459-63.

Fairbairn K, May K, Yang Y, Balasundar S, Hefford C, Abbott JH. Mapping patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) items to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Phys Ther. 2012;92(2):310-7.

Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47(4):258-63.

Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105(3):413-20.

Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, van Vliet D, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(1):30-D17.

Pierobon A. Cuestionarios auto-reportados para la evaluación de la funcionalidad en pacientes de consultorio externo: herramientas disponibles para la población argentina. AJRPT. 2019;1(3):1-3.

Perrone M, Depine J, Melia M, Paredes L, Errico L, Giangarrá A, et al. Traducción y adaptación transcultural de la escala “Patient Specific Functional Scale”. AJRPT. 2019;1(1):3-9.

Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM, Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Schomberg A, et al. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1997;77(8):820-9.

Berghmans DD, Lenssen AF, van Rhijn LW, de Bie RA. The patient-specific functional scale: its reliability and responsiveness in patients undergoing a Total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(7):550-6.

Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31(5):598-602.

Gross DP, Battié MC, Asante AK. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validity in workers' compensation claimants. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(7):1294-9.

Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(2):56-65.

Koehorst ML, van Trijffel E, Lindeboom R. Evaluative measurement properties of the patient-specific functional scale for primary shoulder complaints in physical therapy practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(8):595-603.

Nakamaru K, Aizawa J, Koyama T, Nitta O. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with neck pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(12):2816-20.

Rosengren J, Brodin N. Validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients treated surgically for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(1):53-61.

Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Martínez M, Rubiales AS. ¿Cómo validar un instrumento de medida de la salud?. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2011;34(1):63-72.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539-49.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651-7.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.

Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163-70.

Hervás MT, Navarro Collado MJ, Peiró S, Rodrigo Pérez JL, López Matéu P, Martínez Tello I. Versión española del cuestionario DASH. Adaptación transcultural, fiabilidad, validez y sensibilidad a los cambios. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;127(12):441-447.

Dell'era S, Dimaro M, Gamboa A, Belén Spath M, Salzberg S, Hernández D. Adaptación transcultural y validación argentina del cuestionario lower extremity functional scale. Medicina (B Aires). 2016;76(5):276-285.

Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L, Rebollo P, Permanyer-Miralda G, Quintana JM, et al. El cuestionario de salud SF-36 español: una década de experiencia y nuevos desarrollos. Gac Sanit. 2005;19(2):135-50.

World Health Organization, et al. Clasificación Internacional del Funcionamiento de la Discapacidad y de la Salud: CIF. 2001.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45.

Stratford P. Reliability: consistency or differentiating among subjects? Phys Ther 1989;69(4):299-300.

Beckerman H, Roebroeck M, Lankhorst G, Becher J, Bezemer PD, Verbeek A. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):571-8.

de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures: theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(4):479-87.

de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):54.

Bland J, Altman D. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20(5):337-40.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135-60.

Giavarina D. Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(2):141-51.

Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-57.

Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32-5.

Sánchez R, Echeverry J. Validación de escalas de medición en salud. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2004;6:302-18.

Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, De Vet H. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. COSMIN Amsterdam, The Netherlands; July 2019.

Schmitt J, Abbott JH. Global ratings of change do not accurately reflect functional change over time in clinical practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(2):106-D3.

Mathis RA, Taylor JD, Odom BH, Lairamore C. Reliability and validity of the patient-specific functional scale in community-dwelling older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42(3):E67-E72.

Sharma S, Palanchoke J, Abbott JH. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Nepali translation of the Patient-specific functional scale. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(8):659-64.

Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(5):331-8.

Abbott JH, Schmitt JS. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale was valid for group-level change comparisons and between-group discrimination. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):681-8.

Novak CB, Anastakis DJ, Beaton DE, Mackinnon SE, Katz J. Validity of the Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients following upper extremity nerve injury. Hand (N Y). 2013;8(2):132-8.

Abbott JH, Schmitt J. Minimum important differences for the patient-specific functional scale, 4 region-specific outcome measures, and the numeric pain rating scale. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(8):560-4.

Farrar JT, Young Jr JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149-58.

Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):160-6.

Publicado
2021-10-23
Cómo citar
Rubio, M., Espiño, L., Criscione, C., Rodríguez Calvo, S., Pirovani, M., Goldar, D., Stivanello, S., Cancino, A., Lisazú, J. I., Cristiani, N., Ottaviani, F., & Guardia, G. (2021). Validación de la versión argentina de la escala Patient Specific Functional Scale en sujetos con trastornos musculoesqueléticos. Argentinian Journal of Respiratory & Physical Therapy, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.58172/ajrpt.v3i3.119