The Modified Ashworth Scale is the most widely clinical scale used to measure the increase of muscle tone. Reliability is not an immutable property of a scale and can vary as a function of the variability and composition of the sample to which it is administered. The best method to examine how the reliability of a test scores varies is by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the reliability coefficients obtained in different applications of the test with the data at hand. The objectives of this systematic revision are: what is the mean inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale's scores in upper and lower extremities? Which study characteristics affect the reliability of the scores in this scale? The PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched from 1987 to February 2015. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or in Spanish that applied the Modified Ashworth Scale and reported any reliability coefficient with the data at hand in children, adolescents or adults with spasticity. Thirty-three studies reported any reliability estimate of Modified Ashworth Scale scores (N.=1065 participants). For lower extremities and inter-rater agreement, the mean intraclass correlation was ICC+=0.686 (95% CI: 0.563 and 0.780) and for kappa coefficients, κ+=0.360 (95% CI: 0.241 and 0.468); for intra-rater agreement: ICC+=0.644 (95% CI: 0.543 and 0.726) and κ+=0.488 (95% CI: 0.370 and 0.591). For upper extremities and inter-rater agreement: ICC+=0.781 (95% CI: 0.679 and 0.853) and κ+=0.625 (95% CI: 0.350 and 0.801); for intra-rater agreement: ICC+=0.748 (95% CI: 0.671 and 0.809) and κ+=0.593 (95% CI: 0.467 and 0.696). The type of design, the study focus, and the number of raters presented statistically significant relationships with ICC both for lower and upper extremities. Inter- and intra-rater agreement for Modified Ashworth Scale scores was satisfactory. Modified Ashworth Scale' scores exhibited better reliability when measuring upper extremities than lower. Several characteristics of the studies were statistically associated to inter-rater reliability of the scores for lower and upper extremities.

Resilience has been defined as the capacity or the ability to rebound from and positively adapt to significant stressors, despite experiences of significant adversity or trauma. To capture to what extent an individual copes with stress in a resilient fashion the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) was developed. This tool was validated in people with chronic disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis using standard psychometric techniques of classical test theory, but not yet in patients with Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale in patients with SLE using Rasch analysis. This study used cross-sectional data. The BRCS was administered to 232 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. The aspects analyzed were unidimensionality, local independence and differential item functioning (DIF) to construct an interpretative scale of scores with the Rasch model. Rating scale mode (RSM) showed that the four categories used in the items of the BRCS are properly ordered. The four items provided a good fit to the polytomous Rasch model. Moreover, the parameters were sufficiently separated to measure resilience in patients with SLE. BRCS is a unidimensional scale (eigenvalue = 1.843) of resilience and the items were locally independent. There was no DIF between males and females in the sample. Only marginally significant differences depending on the level of education were found. The BRCS showed adequate discriminant validity between groups of scores. BRCS is a suitable scale for measuring resilience in patients with SLE. This scale might be useful for clinicians to obtain information concerning the degree of resilience that each patient has, allowing individuals with low resilience to be identified who need interventions aimed at developing coping skills.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) has emerged as a dietary strategy that restricts food consumption to a specific time window and is commonly applied to facilitate weight loss. The benefits of TRE on adipose tissue have been evidenced in human trials and animal models; however, its impact on bone tissue remains unclear. To systematically synthesize and examine the evidence on the impact of TRE on bone health (bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover factors), PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were systematically explored from inception to 1 October 2023 searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at determining the effects of TRE on bone health in adults (≥18 years). The Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA recommendations were followed. A total of seven RCTs involving 313 participants (19 to 68 years) were included, with an average length of 10.5 weeks (range: 4 to 24 weeks). Despite the significant weight loss reported in five out of seven studies when compared to the control, our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in BMD (g/cm²) between groups (MD = −0.009, 95% CI: −0.026 to 0.009, p = 0.328; I² = 0%). BMC and bone turnover markers between TRE interventions and control conditions were not meta-analyzed because of scarcity of studies (less than five). Despite its short-term benefits on cardiometabolic health, TRE did not show detrimental effects on bone health outcomes compared to those in the control group. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when interpreting our results due to the scarcity of RCTs adequately powered to assess changes in bone outcomes.