Introduction Spinal musculoskeletal conditions, including low back and neck pain, are leading causes of disability globally. The trunk muscles, which comprise muscles in the thoracic and lumbar regions, are essential for functional activities, necessitating mobility, motor control and strength. To investigate the effectiveness of interventions directed at improving trunk muscle strength, it is essential to have valid, reliable and responsive performance-based outcome measures (PBOM). While isokinetic dynamometry is considered the gold-standard PBOM, the associated costs, size/weight and operational complexity of this equipment preclude its use in a clinical setting. There is, therefore, a need to evaluate the measurement properties of alternative accessible measures of trunk strength. This systematic review therefore aims to investigate the measurement properties of PBOM of trunk muscle strength measures appropriate for use in a clinical setting.
Methods and analysis This protocol has been designed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. CINAHL, Web of Science, Pedro, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscuss will be searched systematically from the database start date up to 16 April 2020, along with reference checking and the grey literature searching. Eligibility criteria include studies investigating measurement properties of PROM for trunk muscle strength for use in a clinical setting in adults with and without spinal musculoskeletal complaints. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of the studies through screening process of titles, abstract and the full text. Both reviewers will assess the risk of bias using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments risk-of-bias tool and then extract the data from included studies. The overall quality of the included studies will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis will be carried out if meta-analysis is not applicable. Findings from this systematic review will aid clinicians and practitioners working in the field for example, sport, in using the most appropriate PBOM to measure trunk muscle strength.
Ethics and dissemination No research ethics application is needed as there are no patient data in this study. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and presented at conferences.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167464.
- rehabilitation medicine
- sports medicine
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @abrushton, @Deb_Falla, @HeneghanNicola
Contributors SA is a PhD student at the University of Birmingham. NRH, AR and DF are supervisors. NRH and AR have expertise in the field of outcome measurement methods. SA, NRH, ABR and DF contributed to the systematic review topic. SA drafted the protocol with guidance and feedback from NRH, AR and DF. NRH, AR and DF reviewed the manuscript and commented on the protocol. AA is a PhD student who will act as a second reviewer. All authors have approved and contributed to the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.