Cadaveric Biomechanical Laboratory Research Can Be Quantitatively Scored for Quality With the Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool: The BOBQAT Score

Erik Hohmann, Nikolaos Paschos, Natalie Keough, Deniz Erbulut, Abrie Oberholster, Vaida Glatt, Maketo Molepo, Kevin Tetsworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a quality appraisal tool for the assessment of cadaveric biomechanical laboratory and other basic science biomechanical studies. Methods: For item identification/development, a systematic review of the literature was first performed. The content validity index (CVI) was used to either include or exclude items. The content validity ratio (CVR) was used to determine content validity. Weighting was performed by each panel member; the final weight was either up- or downgraded to the closest of 5% or 10%. Face validity was scored on a Likert scale ranked from 1 to 7. Test-retest reliability was determined using the Fleiss kappa coefficient. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent criterion validity was assessed against the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale. Results: The final Biomechanics Objective Basic science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) score included 15 items and was shown to be valid, reliable, and consistent. Five items had a CVI of 1.0; 10 items had a CVI of 0.875. For weighting, five items received a weight of 10% and ten items a weight of 5%. CVR was 1.0 for six items and 0.75 for nine items. For face validity, all items achieved a score above 5. For test-retest reliability, almost-perfect test-retest reliability was observed for 10 items, substantial agreement for 4 items, and moderate agreement for 1 item. For internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to be 0.71. For concurrent criterion validity, Pearson's product-moment correlation was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.70, P = .0001). Conclusion: Cadaveric biomechanical and laboratory research can be quantitatively scored for quality based on the inclusion of a clear and answerable purpose, demographics, specimen condition, appropriate bone density, reproducible technique, appropriate outcome measures, appropriate loading conditions, appropriate load magnitude, cyclic loading, sample size calculation, proper statistical analysis, results consistent with methods, limitations considered, conclusions based on results, and disclosure of funding and potential conflicts. Clinical Relevance: Study quality assessments are important to evaluate internal and external validity and reliability and to identify methodological flaws and misleading conclusions. The BOBQAT score will help not only in the critical appraisal of cadaveric biomechanical studies but also in guiding the designs of such research endeavors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalArthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2024

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cadaveric Biomechanical Laboratory Research Can Be Quantitatively Scored for Quality With the Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool: The BOBQAT Score'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this