ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Validation and reliability of the Persian version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.North American Spine Society journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designValidation study.
objectivesTo translate and validate the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) into a Danish version of the disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which assesses symptom severity, physical function, and satisfaction after surgery.
methodTranslation into a Danish version of the original questionnaire by back- and forward-translating the questionnaire and finally transforming a prefinal test version into a final and cross-cultural adapted version. Validation was performed as a cohort study assessing floor-ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, criterion validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness to change.
resultsFifty-three patients were consecutively included in the study, 53 healthy controls were matched. Floor effect was seen in the postoperative data. Internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was good to excellent. Substantial test-retest reproducibility was found using Cohen's weighted kappa. The Danish ZCQ showed moderate to strong association with similar domains of Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form 36, Euro QoL 5D, visual analogue scale-leg and back. The questionnaire showed significant responsiveness to change and a significant discriminant validity between LSS patients and healthy controls.
conclusionThis study shows the Danish translation of the original ZCQ to be well understood by Danish patients. The Danish version is furthermore a reliable and valid questionnaire, which is responsive to change.
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.