Observational studyBMJ open2021
Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Characteristics of symptoms and establishment of a predictive model for PICS in mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia: a retrospective study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Norwegian Version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-NOR): Translation, Face Validity, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Inter-Rater Reliability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Functional outcomes of patients in ICU using the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool: An integrative review.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2023Review
- Physical recovery of COVID-19 pneumosepsis intensive care survivors compared with non-COVID pneumosepsis intensive care survivors during post-intensive care hospitalization: The RECOVID retrospective cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo translate and adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into Chinese version ('CPAx-Chi'), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cut-off point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW). STUDY
designCross-sectional observational study.
methodsForward and back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pretesting of CPAx into CPAx-Chi were based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Two hundred critically ill adult patients (median age: 53 years; 64% men) with duration of ICU stay ≥48 hours and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥11 were included in this study. Two researchers simultaneously and independently assessed eligible patients using the Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi.
resultsThe content validity index of items was 0.889. The content validity index of scale was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r=0.758 (p<0.001) for researcher A, and r=0.65 (p<0.001) for researcher B. Cronbach's α was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 were 0.899 (95% CI 0.862 to 1.025) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.824 to 0.925) for researcher B. The best cut-off point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75% and 87% for researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cut-off points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Cohen's kappa=0.845 (p=0.02) in researcher A and 0.839 (p=0.04) for researcher B.
conclusionsCPAx-Chi demonstrated content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk of ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cut-off of 31.
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.