ArticleHong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao2017
Chinese translation and validation of the Oxford Knee Scale for patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mobilization with movement on reducing pain and disability for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Detection of differentially expressed genes involved in osteoarthritis pathology.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Pooled it
- Feasibility of Knee PROMs in Older Chinese Population: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of WOMAC, KOOS, and OKS.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Cross-Culturally Adapted Versions of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for the Lower Extremity.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
- Reliability and validity of 3 different Chinese versions of the Oxford knee score (OKS).Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOxford Knee Scale (OKS) is a commonly used instrument to assess the symptoms and functional status in people with knee osteoarthritis. However, a Chinese version of this scale is not yet available.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to translate the OKS into Chinese and validate the Chinese version of OKS.
methodsThe Chinese OKS was translated from the original English version following the recommendations of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. One hundred Chinese reading patients with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from local hospitals and physiotherapy clinics. Psychometric properties were evaluated in terms of test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Convergent validity was examined by Spearman rank correlation coefficient tests by comparing its score with the validated Chinese version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Health Outcome Survey Short Form-36.
resultsChinese OKS demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Cronbach α of individual questions was > 0.7. Strong correlation was found between the Chinese OKS and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (ρ > 0.553,
conclusionThe Chinese translated version of OKS is a reliable and valid instrument for clinical evaluation in Chinese reading patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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.