ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2020
Translation, reliability, agreement and validity of the Turkish version of Cumulated Ambulation Score in patients with hip fracture.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2020. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of pre-operative carbohydrate loading in femur fracture: a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Trial
- Construct validity, responsiveness and minimal important difference of the cumulated ambulation score in older adults with hip fracture in sub-acute rehabilitation facility.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Observational
- Validity, Responsiveness, and Predictive Ability of the Japanese Version of the Cumulated Ambulation Score in Patients with Hip Fracture.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
- Translation, Inter-rater Reliability, Agreement, and Internal Consistency of the Japanese Version of the Cumulated Ambulation Score in Patients after Hip Fracture Surgery.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to translate and investigate the inter- rater reliability, agreement and validity of the Turkish version of the Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS-TR) in patients with hip fracture. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study included patients with a hip fracture of the femoral neck between July 2019 and March 2020 at the Dr. Lütfi Kırdar Kartal Training and Education Hospital, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Istanbul. The CAS manual and score-sheet were translated into Turkish. An orthopedician and a physiotherapist independently administered the CAS-TR to 36 patients (12 males, 24 females; mean age 78.7 years; range, 65 to 90 years) at postoperative days one, two, three and 30. Weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure inter-rater reliability. Turkish version of modified Barthel Index was used for analysis of validity.
resultsThe majority of the patients had type III fracture (72.2%) according to Garden's classification. The kappa value was ≥0.90 for days one-three, the total and 30th day score of CAS-TR. The observed agreement ranged between 91.6% and 100% for all assessments. Validity analysis showed a significantly positive correlation between day two and day 30 CAS-TR and Barthel scores.
conclusionWe found almost perfect reliability, high percentage agreement and acceptable convergent validity of the CAS-TR. We recommend the CAS to be used as an easily applicable instrument to assess basic mobility status in Turkish patients with hip fracture. Orthopedic and geriatric patients and patients undergoing any type of surgery can be assessed with CAS for early evaluation of mobility status.
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.