IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation tool for myofascial adhesions in patients after breast cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool): Development and interrater reliability

Author

Listed:
  • An De Groef
  • Marijke Van Kampen
  • Nele Vervloesem
  • Sophie De Geyter
  • Evi Dieltjens
  • Marie-Rose Christiaens
  • Patrick Neven
  • Inge Geraerts
  • Nele Devoogdt

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a tool to evaluate myofascial adhesions objectively in patients with breast cancer and to investigate its interrater reliability. Methods: 1) Development of the evaluation tool. Literature was searched, experts in the field of myofascial therapy were consulted and pilot testing was performed. 2) Thirty patients (63% had a mastectomy, 37% breast-conserving surgery and 97% radiotherapy) with myofascial adhesions were evaluated using the developed tool by 2 independent raters. The Weighted Kappa (WK) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. Results: 1) The evaluation tool for Myofascial Adhesions in Patients with Breast Cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool) consisted of the assessment of myofascial adhesions at 7 locations: axillary and breast region scars, musculi pectorales region, axilla, frontal chest wall, lateral chest wall and the inframammary fold. At each location the degree of the myofascial adhesion was scored at three levels (skin, superficial and deep) on a 4-points scale (between no adhesions and very stiff adhesions). Additionally, a total score (0–9) was calculated, i.e. the sum of the different levels of each location. 2) Interrater agreement of the different levels separately was moderate for the axillary and mastectomy scar (WK 0.62–0.73) and good for the scar on the breast (WK >0.75). Moderate agreement was reached for almost all levels of the non-scar locations. Interrater reliability of the total scores was the highest for the scars (ICC 0.82–0.99). At non-scar locations good interrater reliability was reached, except for the inframammary fold (ICC = 0.71). Conclusions: The total scores of all locations of the MAP-BC evaluation tool had good to excellent interrater reliability, except for the inframammary fold which only reached moderate reliability.

Suggested Citation

  • An De Groef & Marijke Van Kampen & Nele Vervloesem & Sophie De Geyter & Evi Dieltjens & Marie-Rose Christiaens & Patrick Neven & Inge Geraerts & Nele Devoogdt, 2017. "An evaluation tool for myofascial adhesions in patients after breast cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool): Development and interrater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-10, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179116
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179116
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179116&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.