Search

Made available in DSpace on 2020-12-10T20:03:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2020-03-15 Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear. Methods. Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used. Results. The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions. Conclusion. Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP. Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil Univ Fed Minas Gerais UFMG, Dept Phys Therapy, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil FAPESP: 2017/21336-8 FAPESP: 2016/03826-5 FAPESP: 2017/12246-5

OBJECTIVE To explore differences in baseline King-Devick Test (KD) completion time between 2 testing modalities: (1) spiral-bound paper cards (cards) and (2) iPad application (iPad). DESIGN Cross-sectional cohort analysis. SETTING National Collegiate Athlete Association (NCAA) institutions. PARTICIPANTS Student athletes from 13 women's and 11 men's collegiate sports who completed KD baseline testing as part of their first year in the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium from 2014 to 2016 (n = 2003, 52.2% male). INDEPENDENT VARIABLES King-Devick Test modalities; cards or iPad. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Baseline KD completion time (seconds). RESULTS Mean baseline KD completion time of the iPad modality group [42.8 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI), 42.1-43.3] was 2.8 seconds (95% CI, 2.1-3.4) greater than the cards group (40.0 seconds, 95% CI, 39.7-40.3) (t(1, 1010.7) = -8.0, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS Baseline KD performance is slower when tested on an iPad than when tested on spiral-bound paper cards. The 2 KD modalities should not be used interchangeably in concussion assessments because differences in the modalities can lead to time differences similar in magnitude to those used to indicate concussion. From a research perspective, modality may influence interpretation and/or synthesis of findings across studies.

A physician's alert prompted us to investigate workers' cancer risk at a paperboard printing manufacturer. We conducted a retrospective cohort mortality study of all 2,050 persons who had worked at the facility for more than 1 day, calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for bladder and renal cell cancer, and conducted a nested case-control study for renal cell cancer. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) from all causes [SMR = 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.9-1.2] and all cancers (SMR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.3-1.0) were not greater than expected. One bladder cancer and one renal cell cancer were included in the mortality analysis. Six incident renal cell cancers were observed, however, compared with less than two renal cell cancers expected (SIR = 3.7, 95% CI = 1.4-8.1). Based on a nested case-control analysis, the risk of renal cell cancer was associated with overall length of employment but was not limited to any single department or work process. Although pigments containing congeners of dichlorobenzidine and o-toluidine had been used at the plant, environmental sampling could not confirm any current exposure. Several limitations and a potential selection bias limit the inferences that can be drawn.