ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021
Determination of Perceived Levels of Physical Work Demand Thresholds, and Reliability and Responsiveness of the Modified-Spinal Function Sort Questionnaire in a Multidisciplinary Occupational Rehabilitation Setting.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo determine the levels of perceived work demand capacity corresponding to the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS) score and precise reliability validity and responsiveness.
methodsThis prospective validation study included patients with chronic musculoskeletal impairments who underwent multidisciplinary occupational rehabilitation. After determining the percentiles of the work demand thresholds corresponding to the spinal function sort (SFS), the percentiles were transposed to the M-SFS. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and limits of agreement. Correlations with other questionnaires and a lifting task were measured to assess validity. Responsiveness was determined using anchor- and distribution-based approaches.
results288 patients were included. The following thresholds were obtained for the M-SFS: 0-43 points, minimal; 44-50, very light; 51-58, light; 59-64, light to medium; 65-70, medium; 71-76, heavy; and 77-80, very heavy. Reliability was confirmed. The correlation between the M-SFS and SFS scores was good at 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.91) and moderate according to the PILE-test result of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.67). We could not calculate a valid anchor-based minimal clinically important difference. The standard error of measurement was 3.9 points, and the smallest detectable change was 10.8 points.
conclusionsOn the basis of the comparison of the M-SFS and SFS scores, the M-SFS score can be interpreted in relation to the levels of work demand. This study confirms the good reliability and validity of the M-SFS questionnaire in assessing perceived physical capacity. Further studies are needed to determine its responsiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33761082What 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.