Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26048346›Full record

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.

Louise Klokker, Robin Christensen, Richard Osborne, Elisabeth Ginnerup, Eva E Waehrens, Henning Bliddal, Marius Henriksen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Louise KlokkerThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. Louise.Klokker.Madsen@regionh.dk.
Robin ChristensenThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. robin.christensen@regionh.dk.
Richard OsborneFaculty of Health, Population Health Strategic Research Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia. richard.osborne@deakin.edu.au.
Elisabeth GinnerupThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. elisabeth.marie.ginnerup-nielsen@regionh.dk.
Eva E WaehrensThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. eva.elisabet.waehrens@regionh.dk.
Henning BliddalThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. henning.bliddal@regionh.dk.
Marius HenriksenThe Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark. marius.henriksen@regionh.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePain MeasurementPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsWeight-BearingKnee osteoarthritisMeasurementPainPhysical function

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.