Functional assessment instruments in chronic venous insufficiency: A scoping review of their measurement properties

Le résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundChronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a progressive condition of the venous system that negatively impacts physical function.ObjectiveTo identify and analyze functional assessment instruments used in patients with CVI and map their measurement properties, including reliability, validity, and reported changes over time, recognizing that formal responsiveness was evaluated inconsistently across studies.MethodsThis scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations and was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR framework. The study protocol was previously registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dz6u2/overview), and searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS, without date or language restrictions. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.ResultsFrom 6342 records identified, 21 studies were included, with 19 instruments identified. Performance-based measures included walking and functional capacity tests (6-min walk test, 10-m walk test, Incremental Shuttle Walk Test), lower-limb functional tests (30-s sit-to-stand, step tests, single-leg stance, SPPB, weight-bearing lunge test), and other performance outcomes (Heel-rise test). Patient-reported outcome measures included physical activity and functioning questionnaires (e.g., IPAQ-SF, HAQ-20, HAP, LEFS, AADL) and symptom-related measures (FSS). Instrumental assessments included goniometry (manual/digital) and hand-held dynamometry. Across studies, measurement evidence most frequently addressed validity (18 instruments), while reliability (2 instruments) and reported changes over time (13 instruments) were less commonly evaluated and inconsistently reported.ConclusionA wide range of functioning and disability measures has been used in CVI, but measurement properties remain incomplete, particularly in reliability and evidence regarding changes over time, limiting confident selection for outcome monitoring.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.