Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37841704›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Adaption and validation of simplified Chinese version of the Low Back Pain Knowledge questionnaire (sC-LKQ).

Zhe Wang, Yinyao Xie, Olívia Dózsa-Juhász, Alexandra Makai, Melinda Járomi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Zhe WangDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Yinyao XieXi'an Honghui Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Olívia Dózsa-JuhászInstitute of Physiotherapy and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Alexandra MakaiInstitute of Physiotherapy and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Melinda JáromiInstitute of Physiotherapy and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) knowledge questionnaire (LKQ) was developed by a Brazilian research group in 2009. It has been cross-culturally adapted to many languages with good reliability and validity. This work aimed to translate and validate the LKQ into a simplified Chinese version and to evaluate the self-efficacy in LBP among Chinese participants from China and Hungary. Methods: A total of 431 people participated in this research, which lasted from September 2021 to June 2022 and was conducted on the Credamo online platform. The simplified Chinese LKQ (sC-LKQ) was generated through translation and cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. The participants were selected to fill out demographic questions, the sC-LKQ, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The reliability and validity of the data were evaluated using SPSS 28.0. Results: The sC-LKQ showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha was 0.79), and the intraclass correlation value was 0.85. There were five components in the questionnaire with good construct validity. The scores of RMDQ had negatively correlated with sC-LKQ. Conclusion: In the Chinese population, the sC-LKQ demonstrated excellent psychometric qualities and could be used to evaluate self-efficacy in clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

Low Back PainCross-Cultural ComparisonDisability EvaluationHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesknowledgelow back painquestionnairereliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID37841704
PMCPMC10570723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.