PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS). Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult patients with critical illness across the continuum of recovery: an overview of systematic reviews protocol How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? Preventing food allergy: protocol for a rapid systematic review The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study Comparison of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary and secondary studies in health technology assessment reports in Germany Anterior cruciate ligament repair with LARS (ligament advanced reinforcement system): a systematic review A general critical appraisal tool: an evaluation of construct validity.
Prediction relates to estimating the probability of something currently unknown . In the context of medical research , prediction typically concerns either diagnosis ( probability of a certain condition being present but not yet detected ) or prognosis ( probability of an outcome developing in the future ) ( 13 ) . Prognosis applies not only to sick persons or those with an established diagnosis but also to , for example , pregnant women at risk for diabetes ( 4 ) . Prediction research includes predictor finding studies , prediction model studies ( development , validation , and extending or updating ) , and prediction model impact studies ( 1 ) . Predictor finding studies ( also known as risk factor or prognostic factor studies ) aim to identify which predictors ( such as age , disease stage , or biomarkers ) independently contribute to the prediction of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( 1 , 5 ) . Prediction model studies aim to develop , vali date , or up date ( for example , extend ) a multivariable prediction model . A prediction model uses multiple predictors in combination to estimate probabilities to inform and often guide individual care ( 2 , 6 , 7 ) . These models can predict an individual 's probability of either currently having a particular outcome or disease ( diagnostic prediction model ) or having a particular outcome in the future ( prognostic prediction model ) . Both types of model are widely used in various medical domains and setting s ( 810 ) , as evidence d by the large number of models developed in cancer ( 11 , 12 ) , neurology ( 13 , 14 ) , and cardiovascular disease ( 15 ) . Prediction models are sometimes described as  risk prediction models , predictive models , prediction indices or rules , or risk scores ( 2 , 7 ) . An example is QRISK2 for predicting cardiovascular risk ( 16 ) . Prediction model impact studies evaluate the effect of using a model to guide patient care compared with not using such a model . They use a comparative design , such as a r and omized trial , to study the model 's effect on clinical decision making , patient outcomes , or costs of care ( 1 ) . Systematic review s have a key role in evidence -based medicine and the development of clinical guidelines ( 1719 ) . They are considered to provide the most reliable form of evidence for the effects of an intervention or diagnostic test ( 20 , 21 ) . Systematic review s of prediction models are a relatively new and evolving area but are increasingly undertaken to systematic ally identify , appraise , and summarize evidence on the performance of prediction models ( 1 , 6 , 22 ) . Assessing the quality of included studies is a crucial step in any systematic review ( 20 , 21 ) . The QUIPS ( Quality In Prognosis Studies ) tool has been developed to assess risk of bias ( ROB ) in predictor finding ( prognostic factor ) studies ( 23 ) . Research ers can use the revised Cochrane ROB Tool ( ROB 2.0 ) ( 24 ) to investigate the method ological quality of prediction model impact studies that use a r and omized comparative design , or ROBINS-I ( Risk Of Bias In Nonr and omized Studies of Interventions ) for those that use a nonr and omized comparative design ( 25 ) . As more prediction model studies and systematic review s of such studies are used as evidence for clinical guidance , a tool facilitating quality assessment for individual prediction model studies is urgently needed . We present PROBAST ( Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool ) , a tool to assess the ROB and concerns regarding the applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST can be used to assess studies of model development and model validation , including those updating a prediction model ( Box 1 [ 26 ] ) . We refer to the accompanying explanation and elaboration document ( 27 ) , for detailed explanations of how to use PROBAST and how to judge ROB and applicability . Box 1 . Types of diagnostic and prognostic modeling studies or reports addressed by PROBAST . Adopted from the TRIPOD ( Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis ) and CHARMS ( CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Review s of prediction Modelling Studies ) guidance ( 7 , 26 ) . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Methods : Development of PROBAST Development of PROBAST was based on a 4-stage approach for developing health research reporting guidelines : define the scope , review the evidence base , use a Web-based Delphi procedure , and refine the tool through piloting ( 28 ) . Guidelines explicitly aim ed at the development of quality assessment tools were not available at the time ( 29 ) . Development Stage 1 : Scope and Definitions A steering group of 9 experts in prediction model studies and development of quality assessment tools agreed on key features of the desired scope of PROBAST . A panel of 38 experts with different background s further refined the scope during the Web-based Delphi procedure . PROBAST was design ed mainly to assess primary studies included in a systematic review . The group agreed that PROBAST would assess both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of a study evaluating a multivariable prediction model to be used for individualized diagnosis or prognosis . A domain-based structure was adopted , similar to that used in other ROB tools , such as ROB 2.0 ( 24 ) , ROBINS-I ( 25 ) , QUADAS-2 ( Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 ) ( 30 ) , and ROBIS ( 31 ) . We agreed that PROBAST should cover primary studies that develop , vali date , or up date multivariable prediction models aim ing to make individualized predictions of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( Box 1 ) . Studies that use multivariable modeling techniques to identify predictors ( such as risk or prognostic factors ) associated with an outcome but do not attempt to develop , vali date , or up date a model for making individualized predictions are not covered by PROBAST ( 5 ) . Therefore , PROBAST is not intended for predictor finding studies or prediction model impact studies . Studies of diagnostic and prognostic models often use different terms for predictors and outcomes ( Box 2 ) . A multivariable prediction model is defined as any combination or equation of 2 or more predictors for estimating probability or risk for an individual ( 6 , 7 , 3234 ) . Box 2 . Differences between diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Development Stage 2 : Review of Evidence We used the following 3 approaches to build an evidence base to inform the development of PROBAST : identifying relevant method ological review s in the area of prediction model research ( November 2012 to January 2013 ) , asking members of the steering group to identify relevant method ological studies ( January 2013 to March 2013 ) , and using the Delphi procedure to ask members of the wider group to identify additional evidence ( February 2012 to July 2014 ) . Identified literature was used to guide the scope and produce an initial list of signaling questions to consider for inclusion in PROBAST ( 1 , 2 , 57 , 26 , 3340 ) . We grouped signaling questions into common themes to identify possible domains . Additional literature provided as part of the Web-based surveys informed development of the explanation and elaboration document . Development Stage 3 : Web-Based Delphi Procedure We used a modified Delphi process to gain feedback and agreement on the scope , structure , and content of PROBAST . Web-based surveys were developed to gather structured feedback for each round . The 38-member Delphi group comprised method ological experts in prediction model research and development of quality assessment tools , experienced systematic review ers , commissioners , and representatives of reimbursement agencies . We included various stakeholders to ensure that the views of end users , method ological experts , and decision makers were represented . The Delphi process consisted of 7 rounds . Round 1 asked about the scope of the tool , and participants agreed to focus on prediction model studies and follow a domain-based structure . Round 2 aim ed to identify relevant domains and agree on which to include . The signaling questions for domains were refined in rounds 3 to 5 . Respondents used a 1-to-5 Likert scale to rate each proposed signaling question for inclusion . They could also suggest rephrasing , provide supporting evidence ( such as references to relevant studies ) , and suggest missing signaling questions . Round 6 refined the domains and introduced further optional guidance for using PROBAST . In the last round , participants received the agreed draft version of PROBAST and had the opportunity to provide any final feedback . Development Stage 4 : Piloting and Refining the Tool We held 6 workshops on PROBAST at consecutive annual Cochrane Colloquia ( Quebec , Canada , 2013 ; Hyderabad , India , 2014 ; Vienna , Austria , 2015 ; Seoul , South Korea , 2016 ; Cape Town , South Africa , 2017 ; and Edinburgh , United Kingdom , 2018 ) . We also held numerous consecutive workshops with MSc and PhD students ( for example , the master 's program in epidemiology at Utrecht University [ Utrecht , the Netherl and s ] and the Evidence -Based Health Care program at Oxford University [ Oxford , United Kingdom ] ) . In these workshops , we piloted the then-current version of PROBAST to gather feedback on practical issues associated with using the tool so that we could further refine and subsequently vali date it . Finally , more than 50 review groups have already piloted PROBAST versions , including the final version , in their review s. Topics included cancer , cardiology , endocrinology , pulmonology , and orthopedics . All feedback received from these initiatives was used to further inform the content and structure of PROBAST , wording of the signaling questions , and content of the guidance documents ( 27 ) . Results : The PROBAST Tool What Does PROBAST Assess ? PROBAST assesses both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of primary studies that developed or vali date d multivariable prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis ( Boxes 1 and 2 ) OBJECTIVES With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety , we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS ( Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study design s ) , which unifies , integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study design s including qualitative research . STUDY DESIGN Review , pilot testing and expert consensus . METHODS The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years : 1 ) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled , non-controlled and qualitative study design s ; 2 ) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic review s on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing ; 3 ) further refinement and adding of additional study design s in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project ' Systematic review and evidence -based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes ' ( SIGHT ) ; 4 ) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project , which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review . RESULTS ICROMS includes established quality criteria for r and omised studies , controlled before- and -after studies and interrupted time series , and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before- and -after studies , cohort studies and qualitative studies . The tool consists of two parts : 1 ) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design , as well as criteria applicable across all study design s by using a scoring system ; 2 ) a ' decision matrix ' , which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question . The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review . ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic review s to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study design s. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study design s and outcome measures . CONCLUSION ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study design s to be included in systematic review s addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health . The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research . Beyond its application to systematic review s , we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on research ers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting Background Critically ill patients have an increased risk of developing delirium during their intensive care stay . To date , pharmacological interventions have not been shown to be effective for delirium management but non-pharmacological interventions have shown some promise . The aim of this systematic review is to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence or the duration of delirium in critically ill patients . Methods We will search MEDLINE , EMBASE , CINAHL , Web of Science , AMED , psycINFO and the Cochrane Library . We will include studies of critically ill adults and children . We will include r and omised trials and controlled trials which measure the effectiveness of one or more non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence or duration of delirium in critically ill patients . We will also include qualitative studies that provide an insight into patients and their families ’ experiences of delirium and non-pharmacological interventions . Two independent review ers will assess studies for eligibility , extract data and appraise quality . We will conduct meta-analyses if possible or present results narratively . Qualitative studies will also be review ed by two independent review ers , and a specially design ed quality assessment tool incorporating the CASP framework and the POPAY framework will be used to assess quality . Discussion Although non-pharmacological interventions have been studied in population s outside of intensive care units and multicomponent interventions have successfully reduced incidence and duration of delirium , no systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions specifically targeting delirium in critically ill patients have been undertaken to date . This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a multicomponent intervention for delirium management of critically ill patients that can be tested in a subsequent multicentre r and omised trial . Systematic review registration PROSPERO The number of published systematic review s of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions . Systematic review s are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-r and omised studies of interventions . It is important that users can distinguish high quality review s. Many instruments have been design ed to evaluate different aspects of review s , but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments . AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic review s of r and omised trials . In this paper , we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic review s that include r and omised or non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions , or both . With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic review s , including those based on non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions OBJECTIVE To summarize an extensive review of systems for grading the quality of research articles and rating the strength of bodies of evidence , and to highlight for health professionals and decision-makers concerned with quality measurement and improvement the available " best practice s " tools by which these steps can be accomplished . DESIGN Drawing on an extensive review of checklists , question naires , and other tools in the field of evidence -based practice , this paper discusses clinical , management , and policy rationale s for rating strength of evidence in a quality improvement context , and documents best practice s methods for these tasks . RESULTS After review of 121 systems for grading the quality of articles , 19 systems , mostly STUDY DESIGN specific , met a priori scientific st and ards for grading systematic review s , r and omized controlled trials , observational studies , and diagnostic tests ; eight systems ( of 40 review ed ) met similar st and ards for rating the overall strength of evidence . All can be used as is or adapted for particular types of evidence reports or systematic review s. CONCLUSIONS Formally grading study quality and rating overall strength of evidence , using sound instruments and procedures , can produce reasonable levels of confidence about the science base for parts of quality improvement programs . With such information , health care professionals and administrators concerned with quality improvement can underst and better the level of science ( versus only clinical consensus or opinion ) that supports practice guidelines , review criteria , and assessment s that feed into quality assurance and improvement programs . New systems are appearing and research is needed to confirm the conceptual and practical underpinnings of these grading and rating systems , but the need for those developing systematic review s , practice guidelines , and quality or audit criteria to underst and and undertake these steps is becoming increasingly clear CONTEXT The findings of systematic review s ( SRs ) and meta-analyses ( MAs ) are used for clinical decision making . The European Association of Urology has committed increasing re sources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs . OBJECTIVE In this paper , we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office . EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible . When conducting a SR , the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question . An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis . Data are extracted independently by two review ers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third review er . EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In SRs , data for particular outcomes in individual r and omised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta- analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough . Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size , result ing in heterogeneity in outcome between studies . A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for r and omised controlled trials . In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity , or when a review has included nonr and omised comparative studies , it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis . The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system , which can be applied to all evidence , regardless of quality . A SR not only identifies , evaluates , and summarises the best available evidence , but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies . CONCLUSIONS SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations . PATIENT SUMMARY Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based , and systematic review s and meta-analyses are essential in their production . We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic review s and meta-analyses in this paper UNLABELLED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : BACKGROUND Across the developed world , we are witnessing an increasing emphasis on the need for more closely coordinated forms of health and social care provision . Integrated care pathways ( ICPs ) have emerged as a response to this aspiration and are believed by many to address the factors which contribute to service integration . ICPs map out a patient 's journey , providing coordination of services for users . They aim to have : ' the right people , doing the right things , in the right order , at the right time , in the right place , with the right outcome ' . The value for ICPs in supporting the delivery of care across organisational boundaries , providing greater consistency in practice , improving service continuity and increasing collaboration has been advocated by many . However , there is little evidence to support their use , and the need for systematic evaluations in order to measure their effectiveness has been widely identified . A recent Cochrane review assessed the effects of ICPs on functional outcome , process of care , quality of life and hospitalisation costs of in patients with acute stroke , but did not specifically focus on service integration or its derivatives . To the best of our knowledge , no such systematic review of the literature exists . OBJECTIVES • To systematic ally review all high- quality studies which have evaluated the impact of care pathway technologies on ' service integration ' and its derivatives in stroke care • To examine how elements of service integration are defined in such studies • To examine the type of evidence utilised to measure service integration • To analyse the weight of evidence used to support cl aims about the effectiveness of ICPs on improving service integration • To produce recommendations for ICP developers , users and evaluators . INCLUSION CRITERIA Types of participants The review focused on the care of adult patients who had suffered a stroke . It included the full spectrum of services - acute care , rehabilitation and long-term support - in hospital and community setting s. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest Integrated care pathways were the intervention of interest , defined for the purpose of this review as ' a multidisciplinary tool to improve the quality and efficiency of evidence based care and is used as a communication tool between professionals to manage and st and ardise the outcome orientated care ' Here ' multidisciplinary ' is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines . Types of outcomes ' Service integration ' was the outcome of interest however , this was defined and measured in the selected studies . Types of studies This review was concerned with how ' service integration ' was defined in evaluations of ICPs ; the type of evidence utilised in measuring the impact of the intervention and the weight of evidence to support the effectiveness of care pathway technologies on ' service integration ' . Studies that made an explicit link between ICPs and service integration were included in the review . Evidence generated from r and omised controlled trials , quasi-experimental , qualitative and health economics research was sought . The search was limited to publications after 1980 , coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the healthcare context . Assessment for inclusion of foreign papers was based on the English- language abstract , where available . These were included only if an English translation was available . EXCLUSION CRITERIA This review excluded studies that : • focused only on a single aspect of stroke care ( e.g. dysphasia ) • evaluated ICPs as part of a wider program of service development • did not make an explicit link between ICPs and service integration • did not meet the definition of ICP utilised for the purpose s of the review • focused exclusively on the outcomes of variance analysis SEARCH STRATEGY In order to avoid replication , the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Data base and the Cochrane Library were search ed to establish that no systematic review s existed and none were in progress . A three-stage search strategy was then used to identify both published and unpublished studies ( see Appendix III ) . DATA COLLECTION Our search strategy located 2123 papers , of which 39 were retrieved for further evaluation . We critically appraised seven papers , representing five studies . These were all evaluation studies and , as is typical in this field , comprised a range of study design s and data collection methods . Owing to the diversity of the study types included in the review , we developed a single- appraisal checklist and data - extraction tool which could be applied to all research design s.(32 ) The tool drew on the Joanna Briggs Institute ( JBI ) appraisal checklists for experimental studies and interpretive and critical research , and also incorporated specific information and issues which were relevant for our purpose s ( see Appendix VI ) . This extends the thinking outlined in Lyne et al.(31 ) in which , drawing on Campbell and Stanley 's classic paper , the case is made for developing an appraisal tool which is applicable to all types of evaluation , irrespective of study design . In assessing the quality of the papers , we were sympathetic to the method ological challenges of evaluating complex interventions such as ICPs . We were also cognisant of the very real constraints in which service evaluations are frequently undertaken in healthcare context s. In accordance with the aims of this particular review , we have included studies , which are method ologically weaker than is typical of many systematic review s because , in our view , in the absence of stronger evidence , they yield useful information . DATA SYNTHESIS Given the heterogeneity of the included studies , meta- analysis and /or qualitative synthesis was not possible . A narrative summary of the study findings is presented . RESULTS 1 ICPs can be effective in ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and /or assessment s in a timely manner , although these improvements may reflect better documentation rather than actual changes in practice . 2 ICPs can be effective in improving the documentation of rehabilitation goals , documentation of communication with patients , carers ( diagnosis , prognosis and follow-up arrangements ) and documentation of notification of primary care physicians of discharge . However , this can create additional burdens of work for staff . 3 Early studies of ICP-managed care in the acute stroke context have demonstrated reduced length of stay without any associated adverse effects on discharge destination , morbidity or mortality . These effects do not reach statistical significance , however , and may reflect wider changes in service provision and a general trend towards reduced length of hospital stay . While later studies in the acute and rehabilitation context s do not reveal any significant reduction in length of stay , they do report greater documented use of certain clinical interventions and assessment s , suggesting that ICPs can be effective in mobilising hospital re sources around the patient . 4 ICPs implemented in the context of acute stroke care can be effective in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections , although we do not know whether this can be attributed to improved service integration . 5 ICP management in stroke rehabilitation may not be flexible enough to meet diverse patient needs and can result in insufficient attention to higher-level functioning and carer needs influencing perceptions of quality of life . 6 ICP management may assist in clarifying role boundaries and a shared underst and ing of the work , but this can result in some members of the disciplinary team perceiving that their contribution is not appropriately reflected in the documentation . 7 There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction where there is scope for improvement , but in situations in which multidisciplinary working is effective , their positive effects may be limited . Furthermore , it is far from clear what the active ingredients of ICPs actually are . Kwan et al. suggest that it was the process of ICP development that had most impact on behaviours rather than the use of the artefact per se.(20 ) 8 None of the studies assessed the balance of costs and benefits of ICP  use . Therefore , we do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of the reported benefits . CONCLUSIONS Implication s for practice There is some evidence that ICPs may support certain elements of service integration in the context of stroke care . This seems to be as a result of their ability to support the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of re sources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay .  ICPs appear to be most successful in improving service coordination in the acute stroke context where patient care trajectories are predictable . Their value in the context of rehabilitation setting s in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear . There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in bringing about behavioural changes in context s where deficiencies in service provision have been identified . Their value in context s where inter-professional working is well established is less clear . While earlier before and after studies show a reduction in length of stay in ICP-managed care , this may reflect wider healthcare trends , and the failure of later studies to demonstrate further reductions suggests that there may be limits as to how far this can continue to be reduced . There is some evidence to suggest that ICPs bring about improvements in documentation , but we do not know how far documented practice reflects actual practice . It is unclear how ICPs have their effects and the relative importance of the process of development and the artefact in use . ( ABSTRACT TRUNCATED Background Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments , which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness . Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit , following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge . Multiple systematic review s have been published appraising the exp and ing evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions , although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality . We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic review s of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery . Methods / design This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses Protocol ( PRISMA -P ) guidelines . We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Data base , Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effectiveness , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , MEDLINE , Excerpta Medica Data base and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature data bases . We will include systematic review s of r and omised controlled trials of adult patients , admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery . Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale , study types , population s , interventions , comparators , outcomes and quality appraisal method . Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function . Quality of reporting and method ological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s tool . Discussion We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic review s will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery . Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015001068 Background Across the developed world , we are witnessing an increasing emphasis on the need for more closely coordinated forms of health and social care provision . Integrated care pathways ( ICPs ) have emerged as a response to this aspiration and are believed by many to address the factors which contribute to service integration . ICPs map out a patient 's journey , providing coordination of services for users . They aim to have : ' the right people , doing the right things , in the right order , at the right time , in the right place , with the right outcome ' . The value for ICPs in supporting the delivery of care across organisational boundaries , providing greater consistency in practice , improving service continuity and increasing collaboration has been advocated by many . However , there is little evidence to support their use , and the need for systematic evaluations in order to measure their effectiveness has been widely identified . A recent Cochrane review assessed the effects of ICPs on functional outcome , process of care , quality of life and hospitalisation costs of in patients with acute stroke , but did not specifically focus on service integration or its derivatives . To the best of our knowledge , no such systematic review of the literature exists . Objectives To systematic ally review all high‐ quality studies which have evaluated the impact of care pathway technologies on ' service integration ' and its derivatives in stroke care To examine how elements of service integration are defined in such studies To examine the type of evidence utilised to measure service integration To analyse the weight of evidence used to support cl aims about the effectiveness of ICPs on improving service integration To produce recommendations for ICP developers , users and evaluators . Inclusion criteria Types of participants The review focused on the care of adult patients who had suffered a stroke . It included the full spectrum of services ‐ acute care , rehabilitation and long‐term support ‐ in hospital and community setting s. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest Integrated care pathways were the intervention of interest , defined for the purpose of this review as ' a multidisciplinary tool to improve the quality and efficiency of evidence based care and is used as a communication tool between professionals to manage and st and ardise the outcome orientated care ' . Here ' multidisciplinary ' is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines . Types of outcomes Service integration ' was the outcome of interest however , this was defined and measured in the selected studies . Types of studies This review was concerned with how ' service integration ' was defined in evaluations of ICPs ; the type of evidence utilised in measuring the impact of the intervention and the weight of evidence to support the effectiveness of care pathway technologies on ' service integration ' . Studies that made an explicit link between ICPs and service integration were included in the review . Evidence generated from r and omised controlled trials , quasi‐experimental , qualitative and health economics research was sought . The search was limited to publications after 1980 , coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the healthcare context . Assessment for inclusion of foreign papers was based on the English‐ language abstract , where available . These were included only if an English translation was available . Exclusion criteria This review excluded studies that : focused only on a single aspect of stroke care ( e.g. dysphasia ) evaluated ICPs as part of a wider program of service development did not make an explicit link between ICPs and service integration did not meet the definition of ICP utilised for the purpose s of the review focused exclusively on the outcomes of variance analysis Search strategy In order to avoid replication , the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Data base and the Cochrane Library were search ed to establish that no systematic review s existed and none were in progress . A three‐stage search strategy was then used to identify both published and unpublished studies ( see Appendix III ) . Data collection Our search strategy located 2123 papers , of which 39 were retrieved for further evaluation . We critically appraised seven papers , representing five studies . These were all evaluation studies and , as is typical in this field , comprised a range of study design s and data collection methods . Owing to the diversity of the study types included in the review , we developed a single‐ appraisal checklist and data ‐ extraction tool which could be applied to all research design s.32 The tool drew on the Joanna Briggs Institute ( JBI ) appraisal checklists for experimental studies and interpretive and critical research , and also incorporated specific information and issues which were relevant for our purpose s ( see Appendix VI ) . This extends the thinking outlined in Lyne et al.31 in which , drawing on Campbell and Stanley 's classic paper , the case is made for developing an appraisal tool which is applicable to all types of evaluation , irrespective of study design . In assessing the quality of the papers , we were sympathetic to the method ological challenges of evaluating complex interventions such as ICPs . We were also cognisant of the very real constraints in which service evaluations are frequently undertaken in healthcare context s. In accordance with the aims of this particular review , we have included studies , which are method ologically weaker than is typical of many systematic review s because , in our view , in the absence of stronger evidence , they yield useful information . Data synthesis Given the heterogeneity of the included studies , meta‐ analysis and /or qualitative synthesis was not possible . A narrative summary of the study findings is presented . Results ICPs can be effective in ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and /or assessment s in a timely manner , although these improvements may reflect better documentation rather than actual changes in practice . ICPs can be effective in improving the documentation of rehabilitation goals , documentation of communication with patients , carers ( diagnosis , prognosis and follow‐up arrangements ) and documentation of notification of primary care physicians of discharge . However , this can create additional burdens of work for staff . Early studies of  ICP‐managed care in the acute stroke context have demonstrated reduced length of stay without any associated adverse effects on discharge destination , morbidity or mortality . These effects do not reach statistical significance , however , and may reflect wider changes in service provision and a general trend towards reduced length of hospital stay . While later studies in the acute and rehabilitation context s do not reveal any significant reduction in length of stay , they do report greater documented use of certain clinical interventions and assessment s , suggesting that ICPs can be effective in mobilising hospital re sources around the patient . ICPs implemented in the context of acute stroke care can be effective in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections , although we do not know whether this can be attributed to improved service integration . ICP management in stroke rehabilitation may not be flexible enough to meet diverse patient needs and can result in insufficient attention to higher‐level functioning and carer needs influencing perceptions of quality of life . ICP management may assist in clarifying role boundaries and a shared underst and ing of the work , but this can result in some members of the disciplinary team perceiving that their contribution is not appropriately reflected in the documentation . There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction where there is scope for improvement , but in situations in which multidisciplinary working is effective , their positive effects may be limited . Furthermore , it is far from clear what the active ingredients of ICPs actually are . Kwan et al. suggest that it was the process of ICP development that had most impact on behaviours rather than the use of the artefact per se.20 None of the studies assessed the balance of costs and benefits of ICP use . Therefore , we do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of the reported benefits . Conclusions Implication s for practice There is some evidence that ICPs may support certain elements of service integration in the context of stroke care . This seems to be as a result of their ability to support the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of re sources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay . ICPs appear to be most successful in improving service coordination in the acute stroke context where patient care trajectories are predictable . Their value in the context of rehabilitation setting s in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear . There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in bringing about behavioural changes in context s where deficiencies in service provision have been identified . Their value in context s where inter‐professional working is well established is less clear . While earlier before and after studies show a reduction in length of stay in ICP‐managed care , this may reflect wider healthcare trends , and the failure of later studies to demonstrate further reductions suggests that there may be limits as to how far this can continue to be reduced . There is some evidence to suggest that ICPs bring about improvements in documentation , but we do not know how far documented practice reflects actual practice . It is unclear how ICPs have their effects and the relative importance of the process of development and the artefact in use . As none of the studies review ed included an economic evaluation , moreover , it remains unclear whether the benefits of ICPs Background The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is developing guidelines about how to prevent and manage food allergy . As part of the guidelines development process , a systematic review is planned to examine published research about the prevention of food allergy . This systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology , prevention , diagnosis and clinical management , and impact on quality of life , which will be used to inform clinical recommendations . The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the effectiveness of approaches for the primary prevention of food allergy . Methods Seven bibliographic data bases will be search ed from their inception to September 30 , 2012 for systematic review s , r and omized controlled trials , quasi-r and omized controlled trials , controlled clinical trials , controlled before- and -after studies , interrupted time series and cohort studies . Cohort studies will be included due to an inability to r and omize with interventions such as breastfeeding . Studies that focused on the development of either food sensitization ( a proxy measure ) or food allergy will also be eligible for inclusion . Studies will be critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools , as appropriate . Discussion There is a lack of rigorous evidence to support recommendations about how to prevent the development of food allergy . It would appear that it is important to see the prevention of food allergy in the context of individual , family and wider factors that may influence its development . There is much left to learn about preventing food allergy , and this is a priority given the high societal and healthcare costs involved . This systematic review will help to further this learning Abstract The systematic review has become an increasingly popular method of synthesizing findings on a topic in order to inform clinical practice , commissioning of care , and future research . A central component of the systematic review is an assessment of study quality or risk of bias , i.e. an assessment of how near to the ‘ truth ’ the findings of the study are . While undertaking a recent systematic review , it became apparent that the outcomes of the quality appraisal process were somewhat different across systematic review s where the same r and omized controlled trials had been included . The quality of the report writing of the r and omized controlled trials included was identified as one possible reason for this discrepancy . This had implication s upon the conclusions drawn by the review . It is suggested that reasonable attempts to contact study authors should be made in order to inform the quality appraisal process while undertaking systematic review s of r and omized controlled trials and that the presence or absence of this process should be considered by research consumers when appraising the quality of a systematic review . This process enables a full assessment of study quality rather than simply an assessment of the quality of report writing Prediction models in health care aim to predict for an individual whether a particular outcome , such as disease , is present ( diagnostic models ) or whether it will occur in the future ( prognostic models ) ( 16 ) . Diagnostic models can be used to refer patients for further testing , to initiate treatment , or to inform patients . Prognostic models can be used to aid decisions about preventive lifestyle changes , therapeutic interventions , or monitoring strategies or to stratify risk in r and omized trial design and analysis ( 7 , 8) . Potential users of prediction models include health care professionals , policymakers , guideline developers , patients , and the general public . The medical literature contains thous and s of studies developing and validating prediction models and often has numerous prediction models for the same target population and outcomes . For example , more than 60 models address breast cancer prognosis ( 9 ) , more than 250 exist in obstetrics ( 10 ) , and nearly 800 predict outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease ( 11 ) . This proliferation of prediction models will increase further with the growth of personalized or precision medicine . Systematic review s are considered the most reliable form of evidence when addressing r and omized therapeutic studies and studies of diagnostic test accuracy ( 12 ) . In the era of personalized and precision medicine , interest in systematic review s of prediction model studies is rapidly growing , as exemplified by the formation of the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group to support systematic review s of prognosis , including prediction model studies ( 13 , 14 ) . Guidance to facilitate systematic review s of prediction models has been developed ( Table 1 ) , including for search strategies ( 15 , 4143 ) , formulation of the review question ( 16 , 17 ) , data extraction ( 16 ) , and meta- analysis ( 17 , 2225 , 40 , 44 , 45 ) . Table 1 . Guidance on Conducting Systematic Review s of Prediction Model Studies  Assessment of risk of bias ( ROB ) is an essential step in any systematic review . Shortcomings in study design , conduct , and analysis can result in study estimates being at ROBthat is , at risk of results being flawed or distorted . When interpreting results from a systematic review , readers can draw stronger conclusions from a review based on primary studies at low ROB than from one based on studies at high or unclear ROB ( 46 ) . Identifying the studies most relevant to the setting s and population s targeted in the review ( based on the applicability of primary studies to the review question ) is also important . We therefore developed PROBAST ( Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool ) to address the lack of suitable tools design ed specifically to assess ROB and applicability of primary prediction model studies . PROBAST consists of 4 domains containing 20 signaling questions to facilitate ROB assessment ( 39 ) . The structure and rating system are similar to those in tools design ed to assess ROB in r and omized trials ( revised Cochrane ROB Tool [ ROB 2.0 ] ) , diagnostic accuracy studies ( QUADAS-2 [ Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 ] ) , and systematic review s ( ROBIS ) ( 37 , 47 , 48 ) . Although PROBAST was design ed for use in systematic review s of prediction model studies , it can also be used as a general tool for critical appraisal of ( primary ) prediction model studies . Here , we describe the rationale behind the domains and signaling questions , how to use them , and how to reach domain-level and overall judgments about ROB and applicability of primary studies to a review question . At the Web site ( www.probast.org ) , 5 filled-in examples from across the medical field illustrate these processes . Because this is an area of active research , the tool , examples , and accompanying guidance will be up date d when needed , and the latest version of PROBAST should always be downloaded from the Web site . Focus of PROBAST PROBAST is design ed to assess primary studies that develop , vali date , or up date ( for example , extend ) multivariable prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis ( Boxes 1 and 2 ) . A multivariable prediction model is defined as any combination or equation of 2 or more predictors ( such as age , sex , symptoms , signs , disease stage , or biomarkers ) for estimating for an individual the probability or risk of having ( diagnosis ) or developing ( prognosis ) a particular outcome ( 1 , 4 , 68 , 49 , 50 ) . Other names for prediction model include risk prediction model , predictive model , prediction index or rule , and risk score ( 1 , 38 , 4951 ) . Box 1 . Types of diagnostic and prognostic modeling studies or reports addressed by PROBAST . Adopted from the TRIPOD ( Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis ) and CHARMS ( CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Review s of prediction Modelling Studies ) guidance ( 8 , 16 ) . Box 2 . Differences between diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Diagnostic and Prognostic Models Diagnostic prediction models estimate the probability that a certain outcome , the target condition , is currently present . Diagnostic prediction model studies typically include individuals who are suspectedbut not yet knownto have the target condition . Prognostic prediction models estimate the probability that a future outcome or event will occur , such as death , disease recurrence , disease complication , or therapy response . The time period of prediction can vary from hours ( for example , preoperatively predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting ) to years ( for example , predicting lifelong risk for a coronary event ) . Although many prognostic models enroll patients with an established diagnosis , this does not have to be the starting point , as seen in models for predicting development of diabetes in pregnant women ( 52 ) or of osteoporotic fractures in the general population ( 53 ) . Consistent with the TRIPOD ( Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis ) statement ( 7 , 8) , PROBAST thus broadly defines prognostic models as those predicting a future outcome in persons at risk for that outcome . Diagnostic and prognostic model studies often use different terms for predictors and outcomes ( Box 2 ) . The cancer literature frequently distinguishes between prognostic and predictive models , such that predictive models identify individuals with differential treatment effects ( 54 ) . These types of ( predictive ) models are outside the scope of this article . Types of Predictors , Outcomes , and Modeling Techniques PROBAST can be used to assess any type of diagnostic or prognostic prediction model aim ed at individualized predictions regardless of the predictors used ; outcomes being predicted ; or methods used to develop , vali date , or up date ( for example , extend ) the model . Predictors range from demographic characteristics , medical history , and physical examination results ; to imaging results , electrophysiology , blood , urine , or tissue measurements , and disease stages or characteristics ; to results from omics and other new biological measurements . Predictors are also called covariates , risk indicators , prognostic factors , determinants , index test results , or independent variables ( 4 , 68 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 56 , 57 ) . PROBAST distinguishes between c and i date predictors and predictors included in the final model ( 57 ) . C and i date predictors are variables considered potentially predictive of the outcome presence ( diagnosis ) or occurrence (prognosis)that is , all those evaluated in the study regardless of whether they are included in the final multivariable model . PROBAST primarily addresses prediction models for binary and time-to-event outcomes because these are the most common in medicine . However , the tool can also be used to assess models predicting nonbinary outcomes , such as continuous scores ( for example , pain scores or cholesterol levels ) or categorical outcomes ( for example , the Glasgow Coma Scale ) . Almost all PROBAST signaling questions apply equally to continuous and categorical outcomes , except questions addressing number of outcome events per predictor and certain measures of model performance ( such as the c-statistic ) , which are not relevant to continuous outcomes . Prediction models usually involve regression modeling techniques , such as logistic regression or survival models . Prediction models may also be developed or vali date d using nonregression techniques , such as neural networks , r and om forests , or support vector machines . As the use of routine care ( and big ) data increases , additional modeling techniques are becoming more common , including machine and artificial learning models . The main differences between studies using regression and other types of prediction modeling include the methods of data analysis ; nonregression development models can often have greater risks of overfitting when data are sparse , and the potential lack of transparency can affect the applicability and usability of the models . In the section on tailoring PROBAST with additional signaling questions , we provide guidance about how PROBAST can be adapted to address other types of outcomes and modeling techniques . Types of Review Questions PROBAST can be used to assess different types of systematic review questions . For some review questions , all prediction model studies are relevant ( including both development and validation ) , but for other questions only validation studies are relevant . Box 3 gives examples of potential review questions for both prognostic and diagnostic prediction models where PROBAST is applicable . CHARMS ( CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Review s of prediction Modelling Studies ) and Table 2 provide explicit guidance on how to frame a focused question for review s of prediction model studies ( 16 , 17 ) . Box 3 . Examples of systematic review questions for which PROBAST is suitable . There are various different questions that systematic review s Background Systematic review s ( SRs ) are expected to critically appraise included studies and privilege those at lowest risk of bias ( RoB ) in the synthesis . This study examines if and how critical appraisal s inform the synthesis and interpretation of evidence in SRs . Methods All SRs published in March – May 2012 in 14 high-ranked medical journals and a sample from the Cochrane library were systematic ally assessed by two review ers to determine if and how : critical appraisal was conducted ; RoB was summarised at study , domain and review levels ; and RoB appraisal s informed the synthesis process . Results Of the 59 SRs studied , all except six ( 90 % ) conducted a critical appraisal of the included studies , with most using or adapting existing tools . Almost half of the SRs reported critical appraisal in a manner that did not allow readers to determine which studies included in a review were most robust . RoB assessment s were not incorporated into synthesis in one-third ( 20 ) of the SRs , with their consideration more likely when review s focused on r and omised controlled trials . Common methods for incorporating critical appraisal s into the synthesis process were sensitivity analysis , narrative discussion and exclusion of studies at high RoB. Nearly half of the review s which investigated multiple outcomes and carried out study -level RoB summaries did not consider the potential for RoB to vary across outcomes . Conclusions The conclusions of the SRs , published in major journals , are frequently uninformed by the critical appraisal process , even when conducted . This may be particularly problematic for SRs of public health topics that often draw on diverse study design Health care policy background Findings from scientific studies form the basis for evidence -based health policy decisions . Scientific background Quality assessment s to evaluate the credibility of study results are an essential part of health technology assessment reports and systematic review s. Quality assessment tools ( QAT ) for assessing the study quality examine to what extent study results are systematic ally distorted by confounding or bias ( internal validity ) . The tools can be divided into checklists , scales and component ratings . Research questions What QAT are available to assess the quality of interventional studies or studies in the field of health economics , how do they differ from each other and what conclusions can be drawn from these results for quality assessment s ? Methods A systematic search of relevant data bases from 1988 onwards is done , supplemented by screening of the references , of the HTA reports of the German Agency for Health Technology Assessment ( DAHTA ) and an internet search . The selection of relevant literature , the data extraction and the quality assessment are carried out by two independent review ers . The substantive elements of the QAT are extracted using a modified criteria list consisting of items and domains specific to r and omized trials , observational studies , diagnostic studies , systematic review s and health economic studies . Based on the number of covered items and domains , more and less comprehensive QAT are distinguished . In order to exchange experiences regarding problems in the practical application of tools , a workshop is hosted . Results A total of eight systematic method ological review s is identified as well as 147 QAT : 15 for systematic review s , 80 for r and omized trials , 30 for observational studies , 17 for diagnostic studies and 22 for health economic studies . The tools vary considerably with regard to the content , the performance and quality of operationalisation . Some tools do not only include the items of internal validity but also the items of quality of reporting and external validity . No tool covers all elements or domains . Design -specific generic tools are presented , which cover most of the content criteria . Discussion The evaluation of QAT by using content criteria is difficult , because there is no scientific consensus on the necessary elements of internal validity , and not all of the generally accepted elements are based on empirical evidence . Comparing QAT with regard to contents neglects the operationalisation of the respective parameters , for which the quality and precision are important for transparency , replicability , the correct assessment and interrater reliability . QAT , which mix items on the quality of reporting and internal validity , should be avoided . Conclusions There are different , design -specific tools available which can be preferred for quality assessment , because of its wider coverage of substantive elements of internal validity . To minimise the subjectivity of the assessment , tools with a detailed and precise operationalisation of the individual elements should be applied . For health economic studies , tools should be developed and complemented with instructions , which define the appropriateness of the criteria . Further research is needed to identify study characteristics that influence the internal validity of studies Background Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament ( ACL ) of the knee is common . Following complete rupture of the ACL , insufficient re-vascularization of the ligament prevents it from healing completely , creating a need for reconstruction . A variety of grafts are available for use in ACL reconstruction surgery , including synthetic grafts . Over the last two decades new types of synthetic ligaments have been developed . One of these synthetic ligaments , the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System ( LARS ) , has recently gained popularity . The aim of this systematic review was to assess the current best available evidence for the effectiveness of the LARS as a surgical option for symptomatic , anterior cruciate ligament rupture in terms of graft stability , rehabilitation time and return to pre-injury function . Method This systematic review included studies using subjects with symptomatic , ACL ruptures undergoing LARS reconstruction .  A range of electronic data bases were search ed in May 2010 . The method ological quality of studies was appraised with a modified version of the Law critical appraisal tool . Data relating to study characteristics , surgical times , complication rates , outcomes related to knee stability , quality of life , function , and return to sport as well as details of rehabilitation programs and timeframes were collected . Results This review identified four studies of various design s , of a moderate method ological quality . Only one case of knee synovitis was reported . Patient satisfaction with LARS was high . Graft stability outcomes were found to be inconsistent both at post operative and at follow up periods . The time frames of rehabilitation periods were poorly reported and at times omitted . Return to pre-injury function and activity was often discussed but not reported in results . Conclusions There is an emerging body of evidence for LARS with comparable complication rates to traditional surgical techniques , and high patient satisfaction scores . However , this systematic review has highlighted several important gaps in the existing literature that require future prospect i ve investigation . The findings of this review were equivocal with regards to other measures such as graft stability and long term functional outcomes . While the importance of rehabilitation following LARS is well recognised , there is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation protocol BACKGROUND Many critical appraisal tools ( CATs ) exist for which there is little or no information on development of the CAT , evaluation of validity , or testing reliability . The proposed CAT was developed based on a number of other CATs , general research methods theory , and reporting guidelines but requires further study to determine its effectiveness . OBJECTIVES To establish a scoring system and to evaluate the construct validity of the proposed critical appraisal tool before undertaking reliability testing . METHODS Data obtained from this exploratory study along with information on the design of the proposed CAT were combined to evaluate construct validity using the St and ards for educational and psychological testing which consist of five types of evidence : test content , response process , internal structure , relations to other variables , and consequences of testing . To obtain data for internal structure and relations to other variables , the proposed CAT was analysed against five alternative CATs . A r and om sample of 10 papers from six different research design s across the range of health related research were selected , giving a total sample size of 60 papers . RESULTS In all research design s , the proposed CAT had significant ( p<0.05 , two-tailed ) weak to moderate positive correlations ( Kendall 's τ 0.33 - 0.55 ) with the alternative CATs , except in the Preamble category . There were significant moderate to strong positive correlations in the quasi-experimental ( τ 0.70 - 1.00 ) , descriptive/exploratory/observational ( τ 0.72 - 1.00 ) , qualitative ( τ 0.74 - 0.81 ) , and systematic review ( τ 0.62 - 0.82 ) design s and to a lesser extent in the true experimental ( τ 0.68 - 0.70 ) design . There were no significant correlations in the single system research design s. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results obtained , the theory on which the proposed CAT was design ed , and the objective of the proposed CAT there was enough evidence to show that inferences made from scores obtained from the proposed CAT should be sound
On appraisal , the MCS , M4-MS , and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base .
In addition , considering the evidence provided , these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality , proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities .
Despite popular use , there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature , the processes in which they were developed , or the underpinning rationale for their included content .
As such , the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development .