ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2023
WHODAS measurement properties for women with dysmenorrhea.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child: a systematic review of global psychometric studies in specific populations since 2010.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- De Novo Pain in Pregnancy: The Mediating Roles of Depression and Maternal-Fetal Attachment in De Novo Chronic Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an association of dysmenorrhea with human functioning and disability. However, no patient-reported outcome measure has been developed to assess this construct in women with dysmenorrhea. WHODAS 2.0 has been recognized as an important generic patient-reported outcome information of physical function and disability. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the WHODAS 2.0 in women with dysmenorrhea.
methodsThis is an online and cross-sectional study conducted with Brazilian women aged 14 to 42 years with self-report of dysmenorrhea in the last three months. According to COSMIN, structural validity was evaluated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis; internal consistency by Cronbach's Alpha; measurement invariance by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis between geographic regions of Brazil; and construct validity by correlating WHODAS 2.0 to the Numerical Rating Scale for pain severity.
resultsOne thousand three hundred and eighty-seven women (24.7 ± 6.5 years) with dysmenorrhea participated in the study. WHODAS 2.0 presented a single factor by exploratory factor analysis and adequate model by confirmatory factor analysis (CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.900, RMSEA = 0.038), excellent internal consistence (α = 0.892) for all items and an invariancy across geographic regions (ΔCFI ≤ 0.01 and ΔRMSEA < 0.015). Correlation between WHODAS 2.0 and numerical rating scale was positive and moderate (r = 0.337).
conclusionWHODAS 2.0 has a valid structure to assess functioning and disability related to dysmenorrhea in women.
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.