ArticleInternational journal of nursing sciences2024
Measurement properties of assessment tools of Kinesophobia in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review.
Article in International journal of nursing sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Summary of the best evidence for the management of kinesiophobia in patients after cardiac surgery.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Kinesiophobia in patients with coronary heart disease: a Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- The chain mediating role of rumination and psychological resilience in symptom burden and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic heart failure.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the measurement properties and methodological quality of assessment tools for Kinesophobia among patients with cardiovascular disease and provide a reference for healthcare professionals in selecting high-quality assessment tools. Methods: A systematic search was performed on specific databases: Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Biological Medicine disc, CINAHL, and China Science and Technology Journal Database, from inception to April 1, 2023. The researchers retrieved studies on the measurement attributes of the exercise fear scale in patients with cardiovascular diseases. They also traced back the references of the included studies to supplement relevant literature. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening and data extraction were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Two researchers individually used the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist to assess the methodological quality of the scale, applied the COSMIN criteria to evaluate the measurement properties of the scale, and used a modified Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Seventeen studies were identified that reported the psychometric properties of six patient reported outcome measurement tools (included different languages version) The methodological quality of content validity was adequate in only two studies, the remaining patient-reported outcome measures demonstrated doubtful content validity. Limited information on cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, measurement error, and responsiveness was retrieved. The Swedish version and the Chinese version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Heart were graded "A." The remaining instruments were graded "B." Conclusions: The methodological and measurement attributes of the Swedish and Chinese versions of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Heart are relatively high quality and can be tentatively recommended. The measurement properties of the remaining scales remain to be verified.
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.