Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance
Journal article, Peer reviewed
MetadataShow full item record
Original versionStjernfeldt, P. E., Sjögren, P., Wårdh, I., & Boström, A.-M. (2019). Systematic review of measurement properties of methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, 5(1), 76-104. 10.1002/cre2.154
The objectives of this study is to identify methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance (MP) and to evaluate their measurement properties. A secondary objective was to identify any reported adverse events associated with the methods to assess MP. Bibliographic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, and Cinahl databases. Eligible papers that satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised independently by two investigators. Four other investigators independently appraised any measurement properties of the assessment method according to the consensus‐based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. The qualities of the measurement properties were evaluated using predefined criteria. The level of evidence was rated by using data synthesis for each MP assessment method, where the rating was a product of methodological quality and measurement properties quality. All studies were quality assessed separately, initially, and subsequently for each method. Studies that described the use of identical assessment method received an individual score, and the pooled sum score resulted in an overall evidence synthesis. The level of evidence was synthesized across studies with an overall conclusion, that is, unknown, conflicting, limited, moderate, or strong evidence. Forty‐six out of 9,908 articles were appraised, and the assessment methods were categorized as comminution (n = 21), mixing ability (n = 23), or other methods (n = 2). Different measurement properties were identified, in decreasing order construct validity (n = 30), reliability (n = 22), measurement error (n = 9), criterion validity (n = 6), and responsiveness (n = 4). No adverse events associated with any assessment methods were reported. In a clinical setting or as a diagnostic method, there are no gold standard methods for assessing MP with a strong level of evidence for all measurement properties. All available assessment methods with variable level of evidence require lab‐intensive equipment, such as sieves or digital image software. Clinical trials with sufficient sample size, to infer trueness and precision, are needed for evaluating diagnostic values of available methods for assessing masticatory performance.