Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37606246›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2024

Reliability, Measurement Error, Responsiveness, and Minimal Important Change of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale 2.0 for Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain.

Erik Thoomes, Joshua A Cleland, Deborah Falla, Jasper Bier, Marloes de Graaf

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Erik ThoomesCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6375-2267
Joshua A ClelandDepartment of Physical Therapy, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Deborah FallaCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jasper BierDepartment of Manual Therapy, Breederode University of Applied Science, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marloes de GraafResearch Department, Fysio-Experts, Hazerswoude, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2865-5389
University of Birmingham · GBErasmus MC · NLRotterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess functional limitations. Recently, the PSFS 2.0 was proposed; this instrument includes an inverse numeric rating scale and an additional list of activities that patients can choose. The aim of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the PSFS 2.0 when used by patients with nonspecific neck pain.

methodsPatients with nonspecific neck pain completed a numeric rating scale, the PSFS 2.0, and the Neck Disability Index at baseline and again after 12 weeks. The Global Perceived Effect (GPE) was also collected at 12 weeks and used as an anchor. Test-retest measurement was assessed by completion of a second PSFS 2.0 after 1 week. Measurement error was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot. The receiver operating characteristic method with the anchor (GPE) functions as the reference standard was used for calculating the minimal important change.

resultsOne hundred patients were included, with 5 lost at follow-up. No floor and ceiling effects were reported. In the test-retest analysis, the mean difference was 0.15 (4.70 at first test and 4.50 at second test). The ICC (mixed models) was 0.95, indicating high agreement (95% CI = 0.92-0.97). For measurement error, the upper and lower limits of agreement were 0.95 and -1.25 points, respectively, with a smallest detectable change of 1.10. The minimal important change was determined to be 2.67 points. The PSFS 2.0 showed satisfactory responsiveness, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.70-0.93). There were substantial to high correlations between the change scores of the PSFS 2.0 and the Neck Disability Index and GPE (0.60 and 0.52, respectively; P < .001).

conclusionThe PSFS 2.0 is a reliable and responsive patient-reported outcome measure for use by patients with neck pain.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationNeck PainHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSurveys and QuestionnairesMeasurement QualitiesNeckPatient Reported Outcome MeasurePatient Specific Functional ScaleResponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID37606246
PMCPMC10776311
OpenAlexW4386047004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.