ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2015
The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: reliability and cross-validation of the Turkish version.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The status of application and physiotherapy-rehabilitation of prosthetics in Turkey.Journal of physical therapy science · 2016Article
- The relationship between trans-femoral prosthesis alignment and the center trajectory of plantar pressure in the frontal plane.Journal of physical therapy science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] Currently, there are a limited number of amputee-specific instruments for measuring prosthesis-related quality of life with good psychometric properties in Turkey. This study translated the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire to Turkish and analyzed as well as discussed its construct validity and internal consistency. [Subjects and Methods] The Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire was adapted for use in Turkish by forward/backward translation. The final Turkish version of this questionnaire was administered to 90 unilateral amputee patients. Second evaluation was possible in 83 participants within a median 28 day time period. [Results] Point estimates for the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.69 to 0.89 for all 9 Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire scales, indicating good correlation. Overall Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.64 to 0.92, except for the perceived response subscale of 0.39. The ambulation subscale was correlated with the physical functioning subscales of Short Form-36 (SF-36) (r=0.48). The social burden subscale score of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire was correlated with social functioning subscales of SF-36 (r= 0.63). [Conclusion] The Turkish version of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for implementation in the Turkish unilateral amputee population.
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.