You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Nepali versions of numerical pain rating scale and global rating of change
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0812-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saurab Sharma, Joshna Palanchoke, Darren Reed, J. Haxby Abbott |
| Abstract |
Pain intensity and patients' impression of global improvement are widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice and research. They are commonly assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC) questionnaires. The GROC is essential as an anchor for evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs. Both of these PROMs are translated to many languages and have shown excellent psychometric properties. Their availability in Nepali would facilitate pain research and cross-cultural comparison of research findings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPRS and GROC into Nepali and to assess the psychometric properties of the Nepali version of the NPRS (NPRS-NP). After translating and cross-culturally adapting the NPRS and GROC into Nepali using recommended guidelines, NPRS-NP was administered to 104 individuals with musculoskeletal pain twice. The Nepali version of the GROC (GROC-NP) was administered at the follow-up for anchor-based assessment. (1) Test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change (MDC) among the stable group, (2) construct validity (by single sample t-test within the improved group and independent sample t-test between groups), and (3) concurrent validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine the responsiveness of the NPRS-NP using the area under the curve (AUC), and minimum important changes (MIC) for small, medium and large improvements. Significant cultural adaptations were required to obtain relevant Nepali versions of both the NPRS and GROC. The NPRS-NP showed excellent test-retest reliability and a MDC of 1.13 points. NPRS-NP demonstrated a good construct validity by significant within-group difference in mean of NPRS score- t(63)= 7.57, P < 0.001 and statistically significant difference of mean score- t(98)= -4.24, P < .001 between the stable and improved groups. It demonstrated moderate concurrent correlation with the GROC-NP; r = 0.43, P < 0.01. Responsiveness of the NPRS-NP was shown at three levels with AUC = 0.68-0.82, and MIC = 1.17-1.33. The NPRS and GROC were successfully translated and culturally adapted into Nepali. The NPRS-NP demonstrated good reliability, validity and responsiveness in assessing musculoskeletal pain intensity in a Nepali population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 13 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 10% |
| New Zealand | 6 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Nepal | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 60% |
| Scientists | 28 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 40 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 45 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#684,653
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#19
of 2,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,309
of 452,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.