SynthesisThe journal of spinal cord medicine2008
Towards guidelines for evaluation of measures: an introduction with application to spinal cord injury.
Synthesis in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Nottwil Standard-Development and Implementation of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Based Clinical Standard Assessment for Post-acute Rehabilitation After Newly Acquired Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Article
- Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review.BMJ open · 2020Review
- Recommendations for evaluation of neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury and/or disease.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2020Review
- Standardization of Data for Clinical Use and Research in Spinal Cord Injury.Brain sciences · 2016Review
- Outcome measures in spinal cord injury: recent assessments and recommendations for future directions.Spinal cord · 2009Review
- Regeneration of spinal cord with cell and gene therapy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2009Article
- Measurement of sexual functioning after spinal cord injury: preferred instruments.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2009Article
- Participation following traumatic spinal cord injury: an evidence-based review for research.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2008Article
- Outcome measures for gait and ambulation in the spinal cord injury population.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2008Review
- Functional recovery measures for spinal cord injury: an evidence-based review for clinical practice and research.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth clinical practice and research in spinal cord injury (SCI) continue to struggle with issues of the quality and utility of outcome measures employed. Despite widespread deference to dicta on "reliability and validity," systematic means of grading the level of evidence for measures are lacking.
objectivesThis paper explains the methods and principles for use in systematic reviews of measures in SCI. It explains how extant measurement standards and principles can be elaborated for extant labels on various types of reliability and validity to define a more judicious method of grading level of evidence. We aim to initiate a process of discussion that will lead to improved systematic review of the measurement quality as a basis for long-term improvements in outcomes measures and their application.
methodsThis paper is a conceptual review, based on established measurement standards and principles and the incorporation of recent advances in measurement methodology. The scheme of grading of measurement quality is illustrated by examples of measures of health, function, activity/participation, and quality of life after SCI. RESULTS AND
conclusionsIt is possible to grade the quality of outcome measure in terms of level of evidence, provided the nature of the construct being measured is defined as well as its main use. Definite means of grading the level of evidence for measurement will help to identify priorities for measure development and facilitate more appropriate uses of measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.