ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2025
[Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess physiotherapists' postural-structural-biomechanical-oriented beliefs about pain].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Current knowledge among German physiotherapists on the subject of pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapists frequently use the postural-structural-biomechanical (PSB) model in clinical practice to explain the symptom of pain using biomechanical deficits. Adequate knowledge about pain encompasses not only the neurophysiology of pain but also knowledge that existing PSB-oriented explanations of the development and enhancement of pain are outdated. There is no assessment to evaluate physiotherapists' PSB-oriented beliefs about pain.
aimThe aim of the present study was to develop a questionnaire to assess physiotherapists' PSB-oriented beliefs about pain and to evaluate its reliability (internal consistency), validity, and agreement.
methodsThe Essential Knowledge of Pain Questionnaire (EKPQ) was constructed on the basis of a literature search and discussions between experts. In a pilot study, 32 pupils of a physiotherapy school were then asked to complete the German version of the revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (rNPQ-D) and the EKPQ using the SoSci Survey in order to assess their knowledge and beliefs about pain.
resultsThe internal consistency of the EKPQ was acceptable with a Cronbach's α = 0.784. There was a strong positive significant correlation between the questionnaires (r = 0.518; p = 0.002). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 28.9% (± standard deviation of the difference 15.3%) with an upper limit of 95% agreement of 58.8% and a lower limit of 95% agreement of -1.0% between the questionnaires. Participants achieved a mean score of 60.7% in the rNPQ‑D and a mean score of 31.8% in the EKPQ.
conclusionThe newly developed EKPQ questionnaire seems to be a reliable and valid assessment to determine physiotherapists' PSB-oriented beliefs about pain. The results also confirm that a high level of knowledge about the neurophysiology of pain does not exclude a PSB orientation. Whether the EKPQ can be used alongside the rNPQ as an additional assessment to evaluate beliefs about pain should be investigated in the future with suitable study designs, e.g. Delphi study.
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.