ArticlePloS one2020
Assessment of measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the low back activity confidence scale (LoBACS) in patients with chronic low back pain.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between clinical, psychosocial and sociodemographic factors and ICF-domains in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) assesses the self-efficacy to perform activities in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP). As self-efficacy appears to directly influence the patient's functional capacity and prognosis, it is important to develop a scale that evaluates this attribute to guide treatment strategy and monitor the clinical course of patients. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Brazilian version of the LoBACS. The scale was applied to 112 male and female patients (age, 18-65 years) with specific and nonspecific CLBP. For evaluating the interobserver reliability, the scale was applied twice on the first evaluation day by two trained evaluators (A and B). Within 48-72 h of the first evaluation, assessor A reapplied the scale to evaluate intraobserver reliability (test-retest), which was analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The first LoBACS applied in the baseline evaluation was also used to assess the construct validity of the scale by factor analysis. For responsiveness, the scale was applied 5 times at 2-week intervals and the change in scores was analyzed by the repeated measures ANOVA. Although factor analysis indicated three subscales, they did not present acceptable values of convergent and divergent validity. Reliability ranged from good to excellent, with ICC values of .90 (95% CI, .84; .93) and .85 (95% CI, .77; .91) for inter- and intraobserver variability for total score. Moreover, the total score was responsive in all comparisons, with no floor or ceiling effects. Thus, only the total score of the Brazilian version of LoBACS proved to be reliable, valid, and responsive.
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.