ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Reliability, Construct Validity and Interpretability of the Brazilian version of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and Strain Index (SI).
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 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.
- Reliability Analysis of Observation-Based Exposure Assessment Tools for the Upper Extremities: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of DILI in Chinese videos on TikTok (Douyin) and BiliBili: cross-sectional content analysis study.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Exploring the clinical utility of postural outcome tools for back and neck pain clinical outcomes: a systematic scoping review.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Ergonomic Analysis of Dental Work in Different Oral Quadrants: A Motion Capture Preliminary Study among Endodontists.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Wearable Multi-Modal Digital Upper Limb Assessment System for Automatic Musculoskeletal Risk Evaluation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effects of workplace upper extremity resistance exercises on function and symptoms of workers at a tertiary hospital: a randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Musculoskeletal Risks: RULA Bibliometric Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
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
backgroundThere are very few observational methods for analysis of biomechanical exposure available in Brazilian-Portuguese.
objectiveThis study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and Strain Index (SI).
methodsThe cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties test were established according to Beaton et al. and COSMIN guidelines, respectively. Several tasks that required static posture and/or repetitive motion of upper limbs were evaluated (n>100).
resultsThe intra-raters' reliability for the RULA ranged from poor to almost perfect (k: 0.00-0.93), and SI from poor to excellent (ICC
conclusionThe adapted versions of the RULA and SI presented semantic and cultural equivalence for the Brazilian Portuguese. The RULA and SI had reliability estimates ranged from very poor to almost perfect. The internal consistency for RULA was better than the SI. The correlation between methods was moderate only of muscle request/movement repetition. Previous training is mandatory to use of observations methods for biomechanical exposure assessment, although it does not guarantee good reproducibility of these measures.
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.