ArticlePeerJ2021
Measuring walking impairment in patients with intermittent claudication: psychometric properties of the Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History (WELCH) questionnaire.
Article in PeerJ, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatient-reported outcome measures can facilitate the assessment of walking impairment in peripheral artery disease patients with intermittent claudication in clinical trials and practice. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the German version of the 'Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History' (WELCH) questionnaire.
methodsThe assessed properties included feasibility, test-retest reliability, construct validity (i.e., convergent, divergent and known-groups validity) and responsiveness using classic psychometric methods. Psychometric properties were tested as part of a randomized controlled home-based exercise trial for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease at Fontaine stage IIA/B.
resultsAnalyses were conducted in subgroups of 1,696 patients at baseline and 1,233 patients at 12-month follow-up (i.e., post-intervention) who completed the WELCH along with a battery of other self-report measures. The WELCH did not exhibit relevant floor or ceiling effects (< 15% achieved lowest or highest possible scores), showed evidence for good test-retest reliability (ICC = .81, 95% CI [.71-.88]) and was found to be well suited for self-completion by patients (< 5% missing data per item). WELCH scores showed moderate to strong correlations with related measures of walking impairment at both time points (Walking Impairment Questionnaire:
conclusionsThe WELCH is considered a feasible, reliable and valid patient-reported outcome measure for the measurement of walking impairment in patients with peripheral artery disease. The WELCH showed evidence for responsiveness to changes in walking impairment, yet further studies are warranted to conclusively determine the WELCH's ability to detect intervention effects.
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.