Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Dynamic weight-bearing assessment of pain in knee osteoarthritis: a reliability and agreement study.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Photobiomodulation via a cluster device associated with a physical exercise program in the level of pain and muscle strength in middle-aged and older women with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2020Trial
- Dynamic weight-bearing assessment of pain in knee osteoarthritis: construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability in a research setting.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Trial
- Development and validation of a simple nomogram for predicting knee osteoarthritis using movement evoked pain in a community setting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reliability, agreement and smallest detectable change in a measurement instrument for pain and function in knee osteoarthritis; the Dynamic weight-bearing Assessment of Pain (DAP).
methodsThe sample size was set to 20 persons, recruited from the outpatient osteoarthritis clinic at Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen. Two physiotherapists tested all participants during two visits; at the first visit, one single DAP (including four scores) was conducted by rater one; at the second visit, DAP was conducted by both raters one and two in randomized order with concealed allocation. The time interval was approximately 1.5 h. Measurement error was estimated by standard error of measurement (SEM). The intra- and inter-rater reliability was estimated by Intra-class Correlation Coefficients for agreement based on a two-way ANOVA with random effects (single measures ICC 2.1). Smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement were calculated.
resultsThe pain score showed excellent reliability in terms of ICC (intra-rater 0.93, CI 0.83-0.97, inter-rater 0.91, CI 0.78-0.96), low SEM (intra-rater 0.70, inter-rater 0.86, on a scale from 0 to 10), and acceptable SDC for intra-rater test (1.95). The three knee bend scores all had ICC above 0.50, showing fair-to-good reliability. None of the knee bend scores showed acceptable SEM and SDC.
conclusionsThe reproducibility of the DAP pain score meets the demands for use in clinical practice and research. The total knee bend could be useful for motivational purpose in clinical use. Testing of other psychometric properties of the DAP is pending.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26048346What 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.