Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911879›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016

The use of self-report questions to examine the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems: a test-retest study.

Tiffany K Gill, Graeme R Tucker, Jodie C Avery, E Michael Shanahan, Hylton B Menz, Anne W Taylor, Robert J Adams, Catherine L Hill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Tiffany K GillNHMRC Early Career Fellow, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Level 7, SAHMRI, North Tce, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. tiffany.gill@adelaide.edu.au.
Graeme R TuckerSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. grtucker@adam.com.au.
Jodie C AveryPopulation Research and Outcome Studies, Discipline of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. jodie.avery@adelaide.edu.au.
E Michael ShanahanRheumatology Department, Southern Adelaide Health Service, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Rd, Daw Park, SA, 5042, Australia. michael.shanahan@sa.gov.au.
Hylton B MenzSchool of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, 3083, Australia. h.menz@latrobe.edu.au.
Anne W TaylorPopulation Research and Outcome Studies, Discipline of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. anne.taylor@adelaide.edu.au.
Robert J AdamsSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. robert.adams@adelaide.edu.au.
Catherine L HillThe Health Observatory, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. catherine.hill@sa.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCase definition has long been an issue for comparability of results obtained for musculoskeletal pain prevalence, however the test-retest reliability of questions used to determine joint pain prevalence has not been examined. The objective of this study was to determine question reliability and the impact of question wording, ordering and the time between questions on responses.

methodsA Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey was used to re-administer questions collected as part of a population-based longitudinal cohort study. On two different occasions questions were asked of the same sample of 203 community dwelling respondents (which were initially randomly selected) aged 18 years and over at two time points 14 to 27 days apart (average 15 days). Reliability of the questions was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and whether question wording and period effects existed was assessed using a crossover design.

resultsThe self-reported prevalence of doctor diagnosed arthritis demonstrated excellent reliability (κ = 0.84 and κ = 0.79 for questionnaires 1 and 2 respectively). The reliability of questions relating to musculoskeletal pain and/or stiffness ranged from moderate to excellent for both types of questions, that is, those related to ever having joint pain on most days for at least a month (κ = 0.52 to κ = 0.95) and having pain and/or stiffness on most days for the last month (κ = 0.52 to κ = 0.90). However there was an effect of question wording on the results obtained for hand, foot and back pain and/or stiffness indicating that the area of pain may influence prevalence estimates.

conclusionsJoint pain and stiffness questions are reliable and can be used to determine prevalence. However, question wording and pain area may impact on estimates with issues such as pain perception and effect on activities playing a possible role in the recall of musculoskeletal pain.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesPain MeasurementPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26911879
PMCPMC4766689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.