ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2022
Do patient characteristics affect the predictive validity of Functional Capacity Evaluations?
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2022. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to identify patient-related characteristics that affect the predictive validity of the FCE assessment ELA.
methodsA prospective multicenter study was conducted on 303 patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) recruited from eleven rehabilitation centers. The ELA-based estimation of the participants' ability to cope with physical work demands was considered valid if RTW was paired with a positive ELA outcome (≥ moderate) as well as if non-RTW was accompanied by a negative ELA outcome (rather or very poor). In the remaining cases, the ELA result was judged as non-valid. To reduce the risk of false conclusions, the rating was performed inversely in participants that (1) reported severe limitations regarding their productivity at work, (2) attributed RTW to a change in job resp. a reduction of their physical work demands and in those that (3) attributed non-RTW to non-physical reintegration barriers only. Using questionnaires, 28 patient-related characteristics were collected. Logistic regression models were calculated to identify characteristics that affected the predictive validity of ELA.
resultsELA was considered valid in 208 of 303 (69%) participants. A moderate and strong pain-related disability at work were associated with a 0.15-fold (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.05-0.46), respectively, 0.19-fold (95% CI 0.05-0.72) chance for a valid outcome. In addition, a negative influence was found in participants that reported psychosocial distress (odds ratio (OR) 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.82), a native language different from the national language (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.05-0.56) as well as in those that expected to return to work, but not within one month (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.06-0.46). Further variables-including age, employment status, fear-avoidance beliefs and the level of physical work demands-did not affect the predictive validity of ELA.
conclusionsThe results suggest that the predictive validity of ELA is primarily limited by patients that report a moderate or strong pain-related disability at work, psychosocial distress as well as the expectation to return to work, but not within one month. Furthermore, a negative influence can be assumed for language barriers.
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.