ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Norwegian Version of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx-NOR): Translation, Face Validity, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Inter-Rater Reliability.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of physical and respiratory function in the intensive care unit (ICU) is useful for developing an individualized treatment plan and evaluating patient progress. There is a need for measurement tools that are culturally adapted, reliable and easy to use. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) is a valid measurement tool with strong psychometric properties for the intensive care population. This study aims to translate, adapt and test face validity and inter-rater reliability of the Norwegian version of CPAx (CPAx-NOR) for use in critically ill adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.
methodCPAx-NOR was forward backward translated, culturally adapted and tested by experts and patients for face validity. Thereafter tested by 10 physiotherapists in five hospitals for inter-rater reliability.
resultsThe experts and pilot testers reached consensus on the translation and face validity. Patients were tested at time point A (n = 57) and at time point B (n = 53). The reliability of CPAx-NOR at "A" was 0.990 (0.983-0.994) and at "B" 0.994 (0.990-0.997). Based on A+B combined and adjusted, the ICC was 0.990 (95% CI 0.996-0.998). Standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.68 and the minimal detectable change (MDC) was 1.89. The Bland-Altman plot showed low bias and no sign of heteroscedasticity. CPAx-NOR changed with a mean score of 14.9, and showed a moderate floor effect at the start of physiotherapy and low ceiling effects at discharge.
conclusionCPAx-NOR demonstrated good face validity and excellent inter-rater reliability. It can be used as an assessment tool for physical function in critically ill adults receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in Norway.
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.