Quality of mobility measures among individuals with acquired brain injury: an umbrella review

Abstract

Abstract Background and objective While several mobility measures exist, there is large variability across measures in how mobility is conceptualized, the source of information and the measurement properties making it challenging to select relevant mobility measures for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Therefore, the objective was to conduct a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on the measurement properties, the interpretability and the feasibility of mobility measures from various sources of information (patients, clinicians, technology) using an umbrella review of published systematic reviews among individuals with ABI. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, CINHAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2000 to March 2020. Two independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Measurement properties and quality of evidence were applied according to COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) guidelines. Mobility measures were categorized using international standards with the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Results Thirty-five systematic reviews were included covering 147 mobility measures, of which 85% were mapped to the ICF Activity and Participation component. Results showed an acceptable overall "sufficient" rating for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for 132 (90%), 127 (86%) and 76 (52%) of the measures, respectively; however, among these measures, ≤ 25% of the methods for evaluating these properties were rated as ‘high’ quality of evidence. Also, there was limited information that supports measure feasibility and scoring interpretability. Conclusions Future systematic reviews should report measures’ content validity to support the use of the measure in clinical care and research. More evaluations of the minimal important difference and floor and ceiling effects are needed to help guide clinical interpretation. Registration information International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); ID: CRD42018100068.