■描述和分析已验证ICF-CS的横断面研究的方法学特征和质量。
■进行了系统审查,以确定以英文发表的实证研究,这些研究使用横截面设计验证了任何ICF-CS。搜索的数据库包括WebofScience,Scopus,CINAHL,PubMed,Embase,和PsycINFO。搜索于2022年11月进行,并于2023年10月进行了更新。两名独立审稿人对符合纳入标准的研究进行编码,并使用AXIS工具评估其方法学质量和偏倚风险。通过计算频率和百分比进行合成。
■分析了87篇验证24个ICF-CSs的文章。大多数文章显示了研究目标和测量的结果变量之间的一致性优势。然而,绝大多数人没有报告样本量计算(在德尔菲研究中高达94.2%),在世卫组织非洲和东地中海区域进行的验证研究很少。
■验证ICF-CSs的横断面研究质量令人满意,尽管有几篇文章没有描述样本量计算等方面。ICF-CS研究的有效性证据可以通过进行更多的多中心研究来改善,在WHO不同地区复制ICF-CS验证研究,并通过对现有研究的综合。
ICF-CSs的横断面验证研究具有令人满意的质量,支持在类似于此处评估的临床康复环境中使用CSs。对于尚未验证或有效性证据有限的ICF-CSs,需要进行其他验证研究。本综述的方法学结果构成了一个路线图,可以指导未来ICF-CS验证研究的发展和质量。了解通过横截面设计验证了哪些ICF-CS对于计划和设计干预措施以及仪器开发很有用。
UNASSIGNED: To describe and analyze the methodological characteristics and quality of cross-sectional studies that have validated an ICF-CS.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted to identify empirical studies published in English that validated any ICF-CS using a cross-sectional design. Databases searched included Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO. The search was conducted in November 2022 with an update in October 2023. Two independent reviewers coded studies that met the inclusion criteria and assessed their methodological quality and risk of bias using the AXIS tool. Synthesis was performed by calculating frequencies and percentages.
UNASSIGNED: 87 articles validating 24 ICF-CSs were analyzed. Most articles showed strengths in consistency between study objectives and the outcome variables measured. However, a large majority did not report sample size calculation (up to 94.2% in Delphi studies), and few validation studies were conducted in the WHO regions of Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.
UNASSIGNED: The quality of cross-sectional studies validating ICF-CSs was satisfactory, although several articles did not describe aspects such as sample size calculation. Validity evidence for ICF-CS studies could be improved by conducting more multicenter studies, replicating ICF-CS validation studies in different WHO regions, and through synthesis of existing research.
Cross-sectional validation studies of ICF-CSs have satisfactory quality, supporting the use of the CSs in clinical rehabilitation settings similar to those evaluated here.Additional validation studies are required for ICF-CSs that have not yet been validated or for which validity evidence is limited.The methodological findings of this review constitute a roadmap that could guide the development and improve the quality of future ICF-CS validation studies.Knowing which ICF-CSs are validated through cross-sectional designs is useful for planning and designing interventions and instrument development.