ArticleSpinal cord2022
A cross-cultural mixed methods validation study of the spinal cord injury quality of life basic dataset (SCI QoL-BDS).
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a qualitative interview-based study.Spinal cord series and cases · 2026Article
- Quality of life from the patient perspective at the end of the first rehabilitation after the onset of spinal cord injury/disorder - A qualitative interview-based study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- The social dimension of quality of life following spinal cord injury or disease: an international ICF-linking study.Spinal cord · 2024Article
- Responsiveness of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data Set V2.0: An international longitudinal study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023Article
- Surveying people with spinal cord injuries in Brazil to ascertain research priorities.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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 at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designMixed methods inquiry using cognitive interviews and thematic content analysis.
objectivesCross-validation of the concept of quality of life (QoL) and of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic DataSet (SCI QoL-BDS) items across five sites in four countries: United States, Australia, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Analysis aimed to uncover patterns, differences, and similarities suggesting conceptual equivalence for overall QoL and the three SCI QoL-BDS items.
settingInternational, community.
methodsSemi-structured cognitive interviews with 51 participants across five sites and four countries. Participants with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D) completed the SCI QoL-BDS items and one additional question. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software. Coded data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Seventeen themes were identified. Responses by sites were compared for conceptual equivalence.
resultsAcross the five sites, equivalence in the conceptual meaning of QoL was found based on the frequent commonalities in terminology employed to describe it. Despite sample differences in terms of demographic and SCI characteristics, participants across all sites replied to the SCI QoL-BDS items in a similar way, suggesting good item equivalence. Qualitatively, the differences noted with respect to the use of themes for each question suggest some variability on how participants with SCI/D describe QoL. In spite of these contextual differences, there is a high degree of commonalty not explained by participants' demographic or injury/disease characteristics.
conclusionsThe SCI QoL-BDS shows good cross-cultural validity among the international sites included in this study.
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.