Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27065557›Full record

ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2016

Development of a clinical assessment test of 180-degree standing turn strategy (CAT-STS) and investigation of its reliability and validity.

Masaki Kobayashi, Shigeru Usuda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Masaki KobayashiGeriatrics Research Institute and Hospital, Japan; Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Japan.
Shigeru UsudaGunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

[Purpose] To develop a clinical assessment test of 180-degree standing turn strategy (CAT-STS) and quantify its reliability and construct validity. [Subjects] Outpatients with stroke that occurred at least 6 months previously (N = 27) who could walk 10 m without physical assistance were included. [Methods] The CAT-STS was based on the literature and discussion with four physical therapists. The final version of the CAT-STS includes seven items: direction, use of space, foot movement, initiation, termination, instability, and non-fluidity. Patients were videotaped performing a 180-degree turn while standing. The Motricity Index, gait speed and Functional Ambulation Category were also evaluated. Two raters evaluated the turn on two occasions, and inter- and intra-rater reliability were calculated. Construct validity was also calculated. [Results] Inter-rater reliability was fair or moderate for many items (kappa = 0.221-0.746). Intra-rater reliability was good-to-excellent for all items (kappa = 0.681-0.846) except direction and termination. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the total CAT-STS score were substantial and excellent, respectively (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.725 and 0.865, respectively). The total CAT-STS score was associated with walking ability and the time and number of steps taken to turn. [Conclusion] The total CAT-STS score is a reliable and valid measure.

Indexed as

Outcome assessmentReliability and validityStanding turn strategy

Identifiers

PMID27065557
PMCPMC4793026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.