ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Construct validity of self-reported and interview-guided administration methods of the Danish version of the post-COVID-19 functional Status scale.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale was quickly adopted into COVID-19 research and clinical practice worldwide to monitor functional status and recovery. The scale has been translated into Danish, and three different administration methods have been employed. However, clinicians have expressed concerns about the scale's ability to capture work-related functional limitations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of three different administration methods of the Danish version of the PCFS scale. Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients with long COVID who completed three versions of the PCFS scale: a questionnaire-based version, a flowchart-based version, and an interview-based version. The construct validity was evaluated following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines by testing predefined hypotheses that compared the PCFS scale with sick leave and EuroQoL Five-dimensions Five level (EQ-5D-5l). Results: A total of 437 patients, with a mean age 48 years, 75% female, and 59% on sick leave, were included in this study. Statistically significant differences between the three administration methods were found. Of the 234 patients on sick leave, only 50%-54% had a PCFS grade ≥3 which was below our predefined hypothesis. Furthermore, correlations between the PCFS scale and EQ-5D-5l was lower than hypothesized. Conclusion: None of the three administration methods effectively captured work-related functional limitations associated with being on part-time or full-time sick leave. Additionally, correlations with quality of life were lower than expected. Overall, the construct validity of the PCFS scale was only partially supported.
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.