ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2020
Reliability and validation of the Turkish version of the Low Back Outcome Score.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Properties of Chosen Scales Evaluating Disability in Low Back Pain-Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Editorial.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to validate the Turkish version of the Low Back Outcome Score and check its reliability in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).
methodsOverall, 105 patients (81 women and 24 men; mean age: 49.5 years (18-65 years)) with a complaint of LBP for at least 3 months were included in this study. Test-retest reliability was assessed after 7 days. Overall score of LBOS was compared with the overall scores of "Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire," "Oswestry Disability Index," "Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale," "SF-36," and "Bournemouth Questionnaire for Back Pain" to calculate the convergent validity by using Pearson correlation coefficient.
resultsThe questionnaire was noted to have high internal consistency. The test-retest analysis revealed an excellent correlation (ICC=0.80). Pearson correlation coefficient of the LBOS was assessed using VAS and had an excellent correlation with all the questionnaires included in this study.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the LBOS questionnaire appeared to be a valid and reliable outcome measure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Diagnostic study.
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.