ArticleSpine2020
Reliability and Validity of the English Version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).
Article in Spine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Long-Term Prospective Validation of the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor concerning "do the management and functional outcomes of the surgically treated spinal fractures change in suicidal jumpers?" by BB Çakmur, et al. (Eur Spine J [2024]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08259-w).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the AO spine PROST (patient reported outcome spine trauma).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Relationship between spinal alignment and functional disability after thoracolumbar spinal fractures: A systematic review.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Article
- Does Erector Spinae Plane Block Decrease Analgesia Requirements After Minimal-Invasive Posterior Transpedicular Stabilization in Patients With Vertebral Body Fracture? A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Study.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma Questionnaire.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- A disease-specific patient reported outcome instrument for spine trauma is developed, validated and available! Re: Andrzejowski et al. Measuring functional outcomes in major trauma: can we do better?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMulticenter validation study.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items.
methodsPatients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.
resultsThe AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance.
conclusionThe English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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.