ArticleClinical rheumatology2016
Reliability and validation of the joint dysfunction index as a new assessment instrument for therapeutic efficacy for Kashin-Beck disease.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the responsiveness of the WOMAC and the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin-Beck disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the joint dysfunction index (JDI) for assessment of therapeutic efficacy for Kashin-Beck disease (KBD). In an initial survey, completed questionnaires were obtained from 276 of 281 patients (98.2 %). A follow-up survey was completed with 64 KBD patients among 276 cases. A third survey selected 60 KBD patients who underwent intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate in the knees ascertained from the findings of the second questionnaire. Reliability was assessed using test-retest, "split-half" reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Factor analysis and item-to-domain correlation were used to analyze validity. The coefficient of variation (CV) was used to measure the sensitivity of scale. Feasibility assessment included consideration of completion time, rate of recovery, and time of completion. Reliability analysis comprised a test-retest correlation coefficient of 0.404-0.546 and a kappa test of 0.404-0.546. Internal consistency analysis comprised a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.689 and a split-half coefficient of 0.677. Principal component factor analysis for validity testing extracted a common factor with a cumulative variance contribution of 45.44 %. The JDI score from 276 KBD cases revealed no significant difference associated with age, gender, education, or the body mass index. Sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment values, with a CV of 96.55-172.06 %. In conclusion, the JDI can be used to evaluate the efficacy of agents used to treat KBD.
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.