Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37119310›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

The test-retest reliability and minimal clinically important difference of the Dubousset Functional Test and its correlation with Rolland Morris disability questionnaire in chronic non-specific low back pain.

Tuba Unver, Bayram Unver, Kevser Sevik Kacmaz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The psychometric properties of the Dubousset Functional Test in patients with thoracic hyperkyphosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tuba UnverSchool of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, TR-35340, Balçova, Izmir, Turkey.
Bayram UnverSchool of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, TR-35340, Balçova, Izmir, Turkey.
Kevser Sevik KacmazDepartment of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Izmir Katip Celebi University, TR-35340, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey. kevser_sevik@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1675-0757
Dokuz Eylül University · TRIzmir Kâtip Çelebi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examines the test-retest reliability, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and its correlation with the Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) of the Dubousset Functional Test (DFT) in evaluating the functional capacity and dynamic balance of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (cnsLBP).

methodsSeventy-five patients with cnsLBP aged 18 years and over were included. The Five-Repetition Sit-To-Stand Test (5R-STS), the subcomponents of the DFT (the Up and Walk Test, the Steps Test, the Down and Sitting Test, and the Dual-Tasking Test) were administered to the patients. Patients were rested for 1 h, and the DFT was applied again. Pain level was evaluated with the Visual Analogue Scale before the tests started and after the tests were completed. Self-report function assessment was made using the RMDQ.

resultsThe test-retest reliability of the subcomponents of the DFT was excellent. The ICCs were: 0.91, 0.86, 0.89, and 0.89, respectively. The standard measurement errors of the subcomponents of the DFT were 0.32, 0.12, 0.14, and 0.25, respectively. The subcomponents of the DFT were highly correlated with the RMDQ and 5R-STS with the correlation coefficients of 0,83, 0,83, 0,79, 0,83 and 0,81, 0,75, 0,73, and 0,82, respectively (p < 0.01). The MCIDs of the subcomponents were 0,60, 0,23, 0,27, and 0,48, respectively.

conclusionThe DFT is reliable in evaluating patients' functional capacity and dynamic balance with cnsLBP without causing discomfort. It is simple, quick, and simultaneously assesses multiple areas contributing to spinal alignment, muscle integrity, and balance.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAdolescentAdultDisability EvaluationHumansMinimal Clinically Important DifferencePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSpineSurveys and QuestionnairesDubousset Functional TestFunctional evaluationLow back painReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID37119310
OpenAlexW4367368760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.