Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29549605›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

Test-Retest Reliability, Agreement and Responsiveness of Productivity Loss (iPCQ-VR) and Healthcare Utilization (TiCP-VR) Questionnaires for Sick Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Timo T Beemster, Judith M van Velzen, Coen A M van Bennekom, Michiel F Reneman, Monique H W Frings-Dresen

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Timo T BeemsterDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. t.beemster@amc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2747-1913
Judith M van VelzenDepartment of Research and Development, Heliomare Rehabilitation Center, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands.
Coen A M van BennekomDepartment of Research and Development, Heliomare Rehabilitation Center, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands.
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Monique H W Frings-DresenAcademic Medical Center, Department Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess test-retest reliability, agreement, and responsiveness of questionnaires on productivity loss (iPCQ-VR) and healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR) for sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were referred to vocational rehabilitation. Methods Test-retest reliability and agreement was assessed with a 2-week interval. Responsiveness was assessed at discharge after a 15-week vocational rehabilitation (VR) program. Data was obtained from six Dutch VR centers. Test-retest reliability was determined with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa. Agreement was determined by Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), smallest detectable changes (on group and individual level), and percentage observed, positive and negative agreement. Responsiveness was determined with area under the curve (AUC) obtained from receiver operation characteristic (ROC). Results A sample of 52 participants on test-retest reliability and agreement, and a sample of 223 on responsiveness were included in the analysis. Productivity loss (iPCQ-VR): ICCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.90, kappa ranged from 0.42 to 0.96, and AUC ranged from 0.55 to 0.86. Healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR): ICC was 0.81, and kappa values of the single healthcare utilization items ranged from 0.11 to 1.00. Conclusions The iPCQ-VR showed good measurement properties on working status, number of hours working per week and long-term sick leave, and low measurement properties on short-term sick leave and presenteeism. The TiCP-VR showed adequate reliability on all healthcare utilization items together and medication use, but showed low measurement properties on the single healthcare utilization items.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal PainNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePresenteeismRehabilitation, VocationalReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSick LeaveSurveys and QuestionnairesCost-effectivenessHealthcare utilizationMeasurement propertiesProductivity lossVocational rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID29549605
OpenAlexW2791150767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.