ArticleRheumatology international2018
A new biopsychosocial and clinical questionnaire to assess juvenile idiopathic arthritis: JAB-Q.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Turkish version, validity, and reliability study.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Health Literacy Levels of Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Their Parents.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Comparison of Biopsychosocial Characteristics of Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis According to Common Disease Subtypes.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Pediatric rheumatology in Turkey.Rheumatology international · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo create a new multidimensional questionnaire for the assessment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients in standard clinical practice and study the validity and reliability of this questionnaire.
methodsThe Juvenile Arthritis Biopsychosocial and Clinical Questionnaire (JAB-Q) was created using the Delphi technique and consensus conference following an initial literature search. The questionnaire has three parts including a clinician form, child form and parent form. This is a patient/parent-centered outcome tool, which helps us to evaluate the biopsychosocial aspects of the patient, including disease activity, posture, functional and psychosocial status, fatigue, and performance in school. From January 2015 to January 2018, 6-18 years old children with JIA were enrolled in the study. The previously validated questionnaires were also applied to each participant to validate the JAB-Q: Juvenile Idiopathic Disease Arthritis Score (JADAS) and Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), and the Family Impact Questionnaire (FIS). The same questionnaire was re-administered after one week to assess the test-retest reliability in randomly selected 50 children and their parents.
resultsA group of experts were invited to the Delphi survey. After the Delphi tours, the final form of the questionnaire containing three parts as clinician form, child form and parent form was created. This tool was applied to 310 JIA patients and their parents. The children and parents easily handled the JAB-Q and filled the forms in around 10-15 min. The validity of the clinician, child and parents' forms were assessed by the JADAS, CHAQ, and FIS, respectively. The validity of these three scales were determined as moderate. In addition, the test-retest reliability of the clinician, child and parents' forms were considerably high.
conclusionJAB-Q is a valid and reliable multidimensional biopsychosocial outcome tool that can be used routinely in clinical practice of pediatric rheumatology. The main advantage of this tool is incorporation of patients' and parents' perspectives separately while providing a practical and standard setting for the clinician's evaluation. However, further validation of this tool in an independent cohort is needed to improve its applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29869009What 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.