ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2013
Concurrent validity of questions on arm, shoulder and neck symptoms of the RSI QuickScan.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Decision Support Tools for Selecting Interventions for Patients with Disabling Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2016Article
- German version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ): translation and validation.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective was to determine the concurrent validity of questions on arm, shoulder and neck symptoms of an Internet-based questionnaire. In addition, the inter-observer reliability of physical examinations by occupational physicians was investigated.
methodsA total of 160 employees of a Dutch occupational health service were approached, of which 106 participated. Right after the assessment of arm, shoulder and neck symptoms using a self-administered questionnaire, each participant was examined by two occupational physicians. The presence of symptoms in the past 7 days was compared to the physical examinations. The participation of two occupational physicians allowed us to study also the inter-observer reliability.
resultsOverall, the concurrent validity of the symptom questions of the questionnaire can be defined as poor to moderate with κ values between 0.16 and 0.53. Detecting the presence of symptoms (p(pos)) could be considered as moderately valid with values below 0.60, but the p(neg) shows that the concurrent validity for detecting the absence of arm, shoulder or neck symptoms can be considered sufficient with values above 0.69. The agreement between occupational physicians can, with a few exceptions, be considered as moderate with κ values below 0.60. The agreement was sufficient for detecting the absence of symptoms (p(neg) > 0.7).
conclusionsThe agreement between the symptom questions of the questionnaire and physical examinations of occupational physicians can be considered as poor to moderate. The results are comparable to what is generally reported in the literature. Future studies should be aimed at gaining more fundamental knowledge about the possible conceptual differences between self-reported symptoms and symptoms assessed using physical examinations. Moreover, it is advisable to improve the inter-observer reliability of physical examinations as applied in the present study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22956003What 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.