ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Development and validation of the reported outcome scale for patients with lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the breastfeeding resilience scale (BRS) among employed mothers after returning to work.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Article
- Exploratory study of large language models in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter analysis based on multisource clinical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A comparative study of four large language models in treatment decision-making for Hip impingement syndrome based on real-world data.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a culturally relevant and clinically robust Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) scale for patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH), supporting standardized disease monitoring and quality of life assessment.
methodsAn initial 54-item pool was generated through literature review, patient interviews, and expert consultation. In the first round, 163 LDH patients were surveyed, and items were screened using exploratory factor analysis, critical ratio analysis, Cronbach's α, Pearson correlation, and discrete trend analysis. This yielded a 29-item trial scale. In the second round, 350 patients completed the scale for further refinement. In the third round, 539 patients were assessed for test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Validity was examined through content and criterion-related validity analyses.
resultsThe final PRO scale comprised 29 items across five dimensions: Physical Symptoms (5), Physical Dysfunction (11), Psychological emotion (5), Social Adaptation (4), and Therapeutic Effect (4), explaining 69.07% of total variance. The overall Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.95, with subscale values between 0.81 and 0.94. Test-retest reliability was 0.85. Content validity was strong, with content validity ratios from 0.60 to 1.00 and content validity indices from 0.90 to 1.00. Criterion-related validity was supported by correlations of 0.74 with the Oswestry Disability Index and 0.62 with the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale.
conclusionThe developed PRO scale is comprehensive, reliable, and valid for assessing the physical, psychological, and social impacts of LDH. It is well-suited for clinical use and quality of life evaluation in LDH patients.
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.