These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An evaluation tool for Myofascial Adhesions in Patients after Breast Cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool): Concurrent, face and content validity.
    Author: De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Moortgat P, Anthonissen M, Van den Kerckhove E, Christiaens MR, Neven P, Geraerts I, Devoogdt N.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0193915. PubMed ID: 29522540.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To investigate the concurrent, face and content validity of an evaluation tool for Myofascial Adhesions in Patients after Breast Cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool). METHODS: 1) Concurrent validity of the MAP-BC evaluation tool was investigated by exploring correlations (Spearman's rank Correlation Coefficient) between the subjective scores (0 -no adhesions to 3 -very strong adhesions) of the skin level using the MAP-BC evaluation tool and objective elasticity parameters (maximal skin extension and gross elasticity) generated by the Cutometer Dual MPA 580. Nine different examination points on and around the mastectomy scar were evaluated. 2) Face and content validity were explored by questioning therapists experienced with myofascial therapy in breast cancer patients about the comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the MAP-BC evaluation tool. RESULTS: 1) Only three meaningful correlations were found on the mastectomy scar. For the most lateral examination point on the mastectomy scar a moderate negative correlation (-0.44, p = 0.01) with the maximal skin extension and a moderate positive correlation with the resistance versus ability of returning or 'gross elasticity' (0.42, p = 0.02) were found. For the middle point on the mastectomy scar an almost moderate positive correlation with gross elasticity was found as well (0.38, p = 0.04) 2) Content and face validity have been found to be good. Eighty-nine percent of the respondent found the instructions understandable and 98% found the scoring system obvious. Thirty-seven percent of the therapists suggested to add the possibility to evaluate additional anatomical locations in case of reconstructive and/or bilateral surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The MAP-BC evaluation tool for myofascial adhesions in breast cancer patients has good face and content validity. Evidence for good concurrent validity of the skin level was found only on the mastectomy scar itself.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]