Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2024
Reliability of self-measured objective functional impairment using the timed up and go test in patients with diseases of the spine.
Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of a patient's functional status is crucial for determining the need for treatment and evaluating outcomes. Objective functional impairment (OFI) measures, alongside patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), have been proposed for spine diseases. The Timed-Up and Go (TUG) test, typically administered by healthcare professionals, is a well-studied OFI measure. This study investigates whether patient self-measurement of TUG is similarly reliable.
methodsIn a prospective, observational study, patients with spinal diseases underwent two TUG assessments: one measured by a healthcare professional and one self-measured by the patient. Interrater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a two-way random-effects model, considered excellent between 0.75 - 1.00. Paired t-tests directly compared both measurements. The impact of variables such as age, sex, disease type, symptom severity (via PROMs), comorbidities, and frailty on reliability was also analysed.
resultsSeventy-four patients were included, with a mean age of 62.9 years (SD 17.8); 29 (39.2%) were female. The majority (64.9%) were treated for degenerative disc disease. The lumbo-sacral region was most affected (71.6%), and 47.3% had previous surgeries. Patient self-measurement reliability was excellent (ICC 0.8740, p < 0.001), and the difference between healthcare professional (19.3 ± 9.4 s) and patient measurements (18.4 ± 9.7 s) was insignificant (p = 0.116). Interrater reliability remained high in patients > 65 years (ICC 0.8584, p < 0.001), patients with ASA grades 3&4 (ICC 0.7066, p < 0.001), patients considered frail (ICC 0.8799, p < 0.001), and in patients not using any walking aid (ICC 0.8012, p < 0.001). High symptom severity still showed strong reliability (ICC 0.8279, p < 0.001 for Oswestry Disability Index > 40; ICC 0.8607, p = 0.011 for Neck Disability Index > 40).
conclusionsPatients with spine diseases can reliably self-measure OFI using the TUG test. The interrater reliability between self-measurements and those by healthcare professionals was excellent across all conditions. These findings could optimize patient assessments, especially in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39356349What 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.