ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the AO spine PROST (patient reported outcome spine trauma).
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Long-Term Prospective Validation of the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Validating Patient-Reported Outcomes and Surveys in Other Languages.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
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
purposeTo translate AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into Finnish and explore its psychometric properties in a Finnish spine trauma population.
methodsPatients were enrolled at an academic level-I trauma center. Score distribution, floor and ceiling effects, and missing items were explored for content validity. Internal consistency, concurrent validity, and reproducibility were explored with Cronbach's α, exploratory factor analysis, Spearman correlation tests, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs).
resultsTranslation was performed using established guidelines. A sample of 110 patients was enrolled. Score distribution skewed toward higher values, but no floor and ceiling effects were present. Response rates were excellent for all items except for Work/study (60%). Factor analysis indicated two possible dimensions in PROST, explaining 75.3% of the total variance. For PROST total score, correlations were strong with EQ-5D-3 L (r = 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.84]) and ODI (r=-0.89 [0.92-0.84]). Test-retest reliability was excellent with ICC = 0.86 (0.76-0.91). Calculation of the PROST score without the Work/study item appeared valid (ICC 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00]).
conclusionsThe Finnish version of AO Spine PROST is a reliable and valid measure for spine trauma outcomes. We recommend it for clinical practice and research to reduce the current controversies in spine trauma care.
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.