ArticlePhysical therapy2018
Development and Evaluation of the Boston University Osteoarthritis Functional Pain Short Form (BU-OA-FPS).
Article in Physical therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pain Management in Cognitively Impaired Older Adults.International journal of nursing and health care research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pragmatic studies have gained popularity, thus emphasizing the need for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to be integrated into electronic health records. Objective: This study describes the development of a customized short form from the Boston University Osteoarthritis Functional Assessment PRO (BU-OA-PRO) for a specific pragmatic clinical trial. Methods: A Functional Pain Short Form was created from an existing item bank of deidentified data in the BU-OA-PRO. Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to select items. Reliability was measured with the Cronbach alpha, then with IRT simulation methods. To examine validity, ceiling and floor effects, correlations between the short-form scores and scores from the BU-OA-PRO and the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Difficulty subscales, and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. A minimum detectable change at 90% confidence (MDC90) was calculated based on a calibration sample. Results: The BU-OA-PRO was reduced from 126 items to 10 items to create the BU-OA Functional Pain Short Form (BU-OA-FPS). The Cronbach alpha indicated high internal consistency (0.91), and reliability distribution estimates were 0.96 (uniform) and 0.92 (normal). Low ceiling effects (4.57%) and floor effects (0%) were found. Moderate-to-high correlations between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS were found with WOMAC Pain (BU-OA-FPS = 0.67; BU-OA-PRO = 0.64) and Difficulty (BU-OA-FPS = 0.73; BU-OA-PRO = 0.69) subscales. The correlation between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS was 0.94. The AUC ranged from 0.80 to 0.88. The MDC90 was approximately 6 standardized points. Conclusions: The BU-OA-FPS provides reliable and valid measurement of functional pain. Pragmatic studies may consider the BU-OA-FPS for use in electronic health records to capture outcomes.
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.