ArticleAsian spine journal2017
Validation of the Iranian Version of the ECOS-16 Questionnaire in Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective clinical study. PURPOSE: To translate and validate the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (ECOS-16) in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Iran. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: It is important to assess the psychometric properties of instruments measuring patient-reported outcomes.
methodsThe translation was performed using the backward-forward translation method. The final version was generated by consensus among the translators. Every woman who had a T-score of <-2.5 completed ECOS-16. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the World Health Organization's criteria: those with at least one vertebral fracture (surgery group) and those with no fractures (control group). They were asked to respond to the questionnaire at three points in time: preoperative and twice within 1-week interval after surgery assessments (6-month follow-up). The 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) also was completed. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed using internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness.
resultsOf 137 recruited women, 39 underwent surgery and 98 did not. Analysis of the ECOS-16 scales showed an appropriate reliability with Cronbach's alpha of >0.70 for all scales. Test-retest reliability as indicated by intraclass correlation coefficient was found to be 0.85 (0.68-0.91). Additionally, the correlation of each item with its hypothesized domain of the ECOS-16 showed acceptable results, suggesting that the items had a substantial relationship with their own domains. Further analysis also indicated that the questionnaire was responsive to change (effect size, 0.85; standardized response mean, 0.93) (
conclusionsECOS-16 is an acceptable, reliable, valid, and responsive measure to assess the quality of life in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
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.