ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Physical Activity Measurement in People with Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Review of Different Questionnaires.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) provides great health benefits for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Consequently, the design and implementation of PA interventions addressed to this population is needed. To rigorously evaluate these interventions, the use of valid and comprehensive PA measures is crucial. Since the suitability of PA assessment tools might differ among different populations, and considering that questionnaires are one of the most frequently used tools to quantify PA, the purpose of this comparative review was to examine nine questionnaires that have been used to assess PA in people with SCI. All the questionnaires were analyzed in depth in regard to three main dimensions: (1) SCI-specific development; (2) PA domains measured and PA intensity classification; and (3) reliability and validity. After careful consideration of the evidence available on all these aspects, it is suggested that the most suitable questionnaires to be used in PA research in the SCI population are the PARA-SCI and the LTPAQ-SCI[R]. To conclude, the strengths and limitations of these two questionnaires are discussed, and specific recommendations to SCI researchers and practitioners regarding the suitability, according to the context and characteristics, of the research/intervention are provided.
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.