ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Reliability and validity of the German version of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire Post-Exertional Malaise (DSQ-PEM).
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured, expert-informed selection and harmonization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a German multicenter network: the post-COVID syndrome use case.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Symptom-based clusters in people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC).Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Protocol for a multicenter observational study on fatigue across physical-mental conditions within the German center for mental health.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Assessment of symptoms in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a comparative study of existing scales.Frontiers in neurology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of a German version of the DSQ-PEM, using a representative sample from the German general population (final n = 2,263) and a clinical sample with diagnosed post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) (final n = 1,448). Methods: The internal consistency of the German version of the DSQ-PEM was calculated separately for both samples using Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was assessed in both samples through correlations between the DSQ-PEM and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ - 4), and for the PCC sample, additionally through a correlation between the DSQ-PEM and the Chalder Fatigue Scale. To evaluate known-group validity, differences in DSQ-PEM scores between the general population sample and the PCC sample were analyzed, adjusting for relevant sociodemographic variables. Additionally, gender- and age-related differences in the DSQ-PEM were calculated separately for both samples. Results: The DSQ-PEM items demonstrated excellent internal consistency in both the general population and PCC samples. Higher DSQ-PEM scores correlated with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression in both samples and were also associated with higher scores on the Chalder Fatigue Scale in the PCC sample, indicating good convergent validity. The known-group validity analyses revealed that the German version of the DSQ-PEM effectively differentiates between individuals from the general population and those with PCC, even after adjusting for relevant sociodemographic variables. Advanced age and female gender were associated with higher DSQ-PEM scores in the general population sample. No such correlation was found in the PCC sample. Conclusion: In summary, this study confirms the strong psychometric properties of the German version of the DSQ-PEM and supports the instrument as a reliable and valid tool for measuring PEM in Germany and other German-speaking countries.
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.