ArticleScientific reports2025
Reliability, validity and minimum clinical importance difference of the Chinese version of the Zurich claudication questionnaire.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Factors and Treatment Effect Modifiers for Acupuncture Response in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Trial
- Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale Assessment of Surgical Treatment Outcomes in Older Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients with Locomotive Syndrome Stage Three: Comparing Stage-Based and Minimal Clinically Important Difference-Based Improvements.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) has been translated and validated in multiple languages but few people have verified the measurement performance of the Chinese version of Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (Ch-ZCQ). The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of the Ch-ZCQ in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients undergoing non-surgical treatment. It includes the reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of the two dimensions of symptom severity (SS) and physical function (PF). The results shows that the internal consistency and test-retest reliability were good. The content validity index was 0.764. The structural validity was good and moderate suitability. The correlation between the two dimensions of ZCQ is good, which is strongly correlated with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and moderately correlated with 12-item Short Form Health Survey Version 2(SF-12v2). Discriminative validity had significant differences in the degree of classification. The ZCQ's SS and PF dimensions demonstrated a moderate Effect Size (ES) of 0.46 and 0.35. The Standardized Response Mean (SRM) was low, with values of 0.34 and 0.25. Additionally, the Change Rate (CR) was 10% for both, indicating a low level of change. MCID SS= -0.21[95% CI (-0.36, -0.05)]; MCID PF= -0.16[95% CI (-0.36, -0.03)]. This study demonstrates the Ch-ZCQ to be a reliable and valid tool, which can effectively evaluate the effectiveness of nonsurgical treatments for patients with LSS. However, to optimize its application for the Chinese population, further refinement is needed to address the ceiling/floor effects of some items.
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.