ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2017
The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Upper Limb Functional Index.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychometric analysis of the questionnaires for the assessment of upper limbs available in their Italian version: a systematic review of the structural and psychometric characteristics.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Pooled it
- Adaptation of the Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI) to a Polish version and validation in patients with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the Arabic version of the upper limb functional index.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Observational
- Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the upper limb functional index in Arabic.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Observational
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of Urdu version of upper limb functional index; a validity and reliability study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Observational
- Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the Upper Limb Functional Index.Hand therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to establish the reliability and validity of Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI), which has been translated into Korean, in treating patients with upper limb complaints. [Subjects and Methods] Fourty-nine subjects with upper limb disorder, 20 males and 29 females, participated in this study. Reliability was determined by using the intra class correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. Validity was examined by correlating ULFI scores with Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). [Results] Test-retest reliability was 0.90. The criterion-related validity was established by a comparison with the Korean version of DASH. [Conclusion] The Korean version of ULFI was shown to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing upper limb complaints.
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.