ArticlePloS one2017
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire concerning pain management in Chinese orthopedic patients.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- French-Canadian translation of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Article
- Evaluating pain outcomes in Chinese ophthalmology patients using the APS-POQ-R-C: a Rasch analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- International Pain Outcomes (IPO) - Brazilian Portuguese version: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Enhancing pain care with the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire for use in the emergency department (APS-POQ-RED): validating a patient-reported outcome measure.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Evaluate construct validity of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire in gynecological postoperative patients using confirmatory factor analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
- Acute Pain Service in Hungarian hospitals.PloS one · 2021Article
- Pain after orthopaedic surgery: differences in patient reported outcomes in the United States vs internationally. An observational study from the PAIN OUT dataset.British journal of anaesthesia · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study tested the clinical efficiency (item grouping, internal consistency of the subscales, construct validity, and clinical feasibility) of a widely used pain assessment system, the Mandarin version of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-C), in Chinese patients. We also attempted to investigate the current quality of pain management provided in orthopedic inpatient units in China and provide baseline data. First, we investigated the test-retest reliability of APS-POQ-R-C. In total, 236 orthopedic patients were evaluated. Our results showed that APS-POQ-R-C has satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity, although some items are not appropriate for orthopedic patients. Test-retest reliability outcomes indicated that APS-POQ-R-C is a satisfactory battery with acceptable validity and reliability, and is therefore recommended for pain management in future studies.
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.