ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma Questionnaire.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation and initial psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the treatment expectation questionnaire (TEX-Q).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Long-Term Prospective Validation of the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the AO spine PROST (patient reported outcome spine trauma).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA single-center validation study.
objectiveTo translate and cross-culturally adapt the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into German, and to test its psychometric properties among German-speaking Swiss spine trauma patients.
methodsPatients were recruited from a level-1 Swiss trauma center. Next to the AO Spine PROST, the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used for concurrent validity. Questionnaires were filled out at two-time points for test-retest reliability. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For content validity, floor, and ceiling effects, as well as any irrelevant and missing questions were analyzed. Construct validity of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire to the EQ-5D-3L was tested using Spearman correlation tests.
resultsThe AOSpine PROST was translated and adapted into German using established guidelines. We included 179 patients. The floor effect for all items was well within the optimal range (below 15%), while the ceiling effect of seven items was within the optimal range. None of the items displayed a problematic floor or ceiling effect. The overall test-retest reliability of the total PROST score was excellent, with an ICC of .83 (95% CI .69-.91). The Spearman correlation coefficient between the total PROST summary score and EQ-5D-3 L was ρ = .63.
conclusionsThe German version of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire demonstrated very good validity and reliability results.
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.