Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31834923›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2019

Validity and reliability of telephone administration of the patient-specific functional scale for the assessment of recovery from snakebite envenomation.

Rebecca G Theophanous, Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci, Fan Hui Wen, S Michelle Griffin, Victoria E Anderson, Michael E Mullins, Nicklaus P Brandehoff, Eugenia B Quackenbush, Sean P Bush, Eric A Toschlog and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials].Medecine tropicale et sante internationale · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

19 authors.

Rebecca G TheophanousDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0697-3703
Joao Ricardo Nickenig VissociDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Fan Hui WenHospital Vital, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil.
S Michelle GriffinDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Victoria E AndersonRocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, United States of America.
Michael E MullinsDivision of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8605-0217
Nicklaus P BrandehoffDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco Fresno, Fresno, CA, United States of America.
Eugenia B QuackenbushDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9872-1396
Sean P BushDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, United States of America.
Eric A ToschlogDepartment of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, United States of America.
Spencer C GreeneHenry J. N. Taub Department of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Kapil SharmaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States of America.
Kurt KleinschmidtDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States of America.
Nathan P CharltonDivision of Medical Toxicology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States of America.
S Rutherfoord RoseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4573-1467
Richard SchwartzDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Hospital Services, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, United States of America.
Brandon LewisTexas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, TX, United States of America.
Eric J LavonasRocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, United States of America.
Charles J GerardoDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAlthough more than 1.8 million people survive snakebite envenomation each year, their recovery is understudied. Obtaining long-term follow-up is challenging in both high- and low-resource settings. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is an easily administered, well-accepted patient-reported outcome that is validated for assessing limb recovery from snakebite envenomation. We studied whether the PSFS is valid and reliable when administered by telephone.

methodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. We analyzed the results of PSFS collected in-person on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 and by telephone on days 10, 17, and 24. We assessed the following scale psychometric properties: (a) content validity (ceiling and floor effects), (b) internal structure and consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and (c) temporal and external validity using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Temporal stability was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient and agreement between adjacent in-person and telephonic assessments with Cohen's kappa. Bland Altman analysis was used to assess differential bias in low and high score results.

resultsData from 74 patients were available for analysis. Floor effects were seen in the early post-injury time points (median: 3 (IQR: 0, 5) at 3 days post-enrollment) and ceiling effects in the late time points (median: 9 (IQR: 8, 10). Internal consistency was good to excellent with both in-person (Cronbach α: 0.91 (95%CI 0.88, 0.95)) and telephone administration (0.81 (0.73, 0.89). Temporal stability was also good (ICC: 0.83 (0.72, 0.89) in-person, 0.80 (0.68, 0.88) telephone). A strong linear correlation was found between in-person and telephone administration (Spearman's ρ: 0.83 (CI: 0.78, 0.84), consistency was assessed as excellent (Cohen's κ 0.81 (CI: 0.78, 0.84), and Bland Altman analysis showed no systematic bias.

conclusionsTelephone administration of the PSFS provides valid, reliable, and consistent data for the assessment of recovery from snakebite envenomation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSnake BitesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31834923
PMCPMC6934321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.