ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Validating Questionnaires for Lower Limb Rehabilitation Systems and Devices: A Scoping Review.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article aims to make a scoping review of Validating Questionnaires used in the field of lower limb (LL) rehabilitation in which systems, devices or exergames are used. Its main objective is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the results obtained in the validation of questionnaires, as well as to identify specific criteria for evaluating systems, devices or exergames in the area of LL rehabilitation, through the analysis of validating instruments and their application in different associated contexts. The article details the methodology employed, a PRISMA ScR method review which included database research and an evaluation of the selected studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select all relevant studies, resulting in 81 studies after initial review based on titles and abstracts. Subsequently, the criteria were again applied to read the full text, resulting in 58 final studies. The document distinguishes between standardized and non-standardized validating questionnaires, emphasizing that standardized validating questionnaires have undergone rigorous statistical processes to ensure their validity, reliability and consistency. The information compiled in the tables provides a solid basis for identifying and evaluating validation questionnaires in the above-mentioned context. This resource constitutes an accurate and reliable reference for selecting the most appropriate instruments for future research and comparisons with similar work. This article is a valuable resource for those interested in the validation of questionnaires used in the field of lower limb rehabilitation systems/devices/exergames.
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.