Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review
To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions. A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Thi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2024-08, Vol.172, p.111398, Article 111398 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 111398 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 172 |
| creator | Corrêa, Leticia Amaral Mathieson, Stephanie Hancock, Mark Verhagen, Arianne Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans Young, Annie Pate, Joshua W. French, Simon D. |
| description | To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO – ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM.
The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use.
No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.
[Display omitted] |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111398 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3062532685</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435624001537</els_id><sourcerecordid>3094741720</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-a092ba2e2f189761d6e9a2a9a2d2ec1e1649868cfd8253f1f88e3a76f23f78633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc2OFCEURitG47SjrzAhcePCaoGqoihXmol_ySTGRNeEgssMNTS0XMpJP5DvKZ2eceHGBWHBud8l32maC0a3jDLxZtkuJvgIe7_llPdbxlg3yUfNhslRtsPE2eNmQ-U0tH03iLPmGeJCKRvpODxtzjopGZU92zS_v62AxacYtc-ARCMCoo_X5DamuwD2GoiOlswQPLj6Pqe1kN2KZg0JbyFA0YGYFK0_plQgA9mnArF4HcKB4OqLngMQlzJZEV6TuQa4NZcbyKSuBJ3NDfFIIoAF-5ZoggcssNPFmwr88nD3vHnidEB4cX-fNz8-fvh--bm9-vrpy-X7q9Z0EyutphOfNQfumJxGwayASXNdj-VgGDDRT1JI46zkQ-eYkxI6PQrHOzdK0XXnzatT7j6nn8di1M6jgRB0hLSi6qiog1zIoaIv_0GXtOZYf1epqR97NnJaKXGiTE6IGZzaZ7_T-aAYVUeRalEPItVRpDqJrIMX9_HrvAP7d-zBXAXenQCofdSOskLjIRqw1aMpyib_vx1_AEh9tmg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3094741720</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral ; Mathieson, Stephanie ; Hancock, Mark ; Verhagen, Arianne ; Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans ; Young, Annie ; Pate, Joshua W. ; French, Simon D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral ; Mathieson, Stephanie ; Hancock, Mark ; Verhagen, Arianne ; Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans ; Young, Annie ; Pate, Joshua W. ; French, Simon D.</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO – ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM.
The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use.
No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.
[Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111398</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38810841</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arthritis ; Back pain ; Beliefs ; Design standards ; Error analysis ; Evaluation ; Hypotheses ; Knowledge ; Literature reviews ; Measuring instruments ; Musculoskeletal condition ; Osteoarthritis ; Patient-reported outcome measures ; Patients ; Psychometrics ; Quality assessment ; Questionnaires ; Software ; Systematic review ; Validation studies ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-08, Vol.172, p.111398, Article 111398</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-a092ba2e2f189761d6e9a2a9a2d2ec1e1649868cfd8253f1f88e3a76f23f78633</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7335-8842 ; 0000-0002-8188-7111 ; 0000-0002-7061-7706 ; 0000-0002-0177-9816 ; 0000-0002-6195-0128 ; 0000-0001-5730-0184</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624001537$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38810841$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathieson, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhagen, Arianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pate, Joshua W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>French, Simon D.</creatorcontrib><title>Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO – ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM.
The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use.
No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.
[Display omitted]</description><subject>Arthritis</subject><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Beliefs</subject><subject>Design standards</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal condition</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis</subject><subject>Patient-reported outcome measures</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc2OFCEURitG47SjrzAhcePCaoGqoihXmol_ySTGRNeEgssMNTS0XMpJP5DvKZ2eceHGBWHBud8l32maC0a3jDLxZtkuJvgIe7_llPdbxlg3yUfNhslRtsPE2eNmQ-U0tH03iLPmGeJCKRvpODxtzjopGZU92zS_v62AxacYtc-ARCMCoo_X5DamuwD2GoiOlswQPLj6Pqe1kN2KZg0JbyFA0YGYFK0_plQgA9mnArF4HcKB4OqLngMQlzJZEV6TuQa4NZcbyKSuBJ3NDfFIIoAF-5ZoggcssNPFmwr88nD3vHnidEB4cX-fNz8-fvh--bm9-vrpy-X7q9Z0EyutphOfNQfumJxGwayASXNdj-VgGDDRT1JI46zkQ-eYkxI6PQrHOzdK0XXnzatT7j6nn8di1M6jgRB0hLSi6qiog1zIoaIv_0GXtOZYf1epqR97NnJaKXGiTE6IGZzaZ7_T-aAYVUeRalEPItVRpDqJrIMX9_HrvAP7d-zBXAXenQCofdSOskLjIRqw1aMpyib_vx1_AEh9tmg</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral</creator><creator>Mathieson, Stephanie</creator><creator>Hancock, Mark</creator><creator>Verhagen, Arianne</creator><creator>Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans</creator><creator>Young, Annie</creator><creator>Pate, Joshua W.</creator><creator>French, Simon D.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7335-8842</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8188-7111</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7061-7706</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0177-9816</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6195-0128</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5730-0184</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review</title><author>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral ; Mathieson, Stephanie ; Hancock, Mark ; Verhagen, Arianne ; Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans ; Young, Annie ; Pate, Joshua W. ; French, Simon D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-a092ba2e2f189761d6e9a2a9a2d2ec1e1649868cfd8253f1f88e3a76f23f78633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Arthritis</topic><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Beliefs</topic><topic>Design standards</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal condition</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis</topic><topic>Patient-reported outcome measures</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathieson, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhagen, Arianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pate, Joshua W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>French, Simon D.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Corrêa, Leticia Amaral</au><au>Mathieson, Stephanie</au><au>Hancock, Mark</au><au>Verhagen, Arianne</au><au>Nogueira, Leandro Alberto Calazans</au><au>Young, Annie</au><au>Pate, Joshua W.</au><au>French, Simon D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>172</volume><spage>111398</spage><pages>111398-</pages><artnum>111398</artnum><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO – ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM.
The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use.
No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.
[Display omitted]</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38810841</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111398</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7335-8842</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8188-7111</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7061-7706</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0177-9816</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6195-0128</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5730-0184</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-08, Vol.172, p.111398, Article 111398 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3062532685 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Arthritis Back pain Beliefs Design standards Error analysis Evaluation Hypotheses Knowledge Literature reviews Measuring instruments Musculoskeletal condition Osteoarthritis Patient-reported outcome measures Patients Psychometrics Quality assessment Questionnaires Software Systematic review Validation studies Validity |
| title | Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T01%3A39%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Questionnaires%20assessing%20knowledge%20and%20beliefs%20about%20musculoskeletal%20conditions%20are%20potentially%20suitable%20for%20use,%20but%20further%20research%20is%20needed:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Corr%C3%AAa,%20Leticia%20Amaral&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=172&rft.spage=111398&rft.pages=111398-&rft.artnum=111398&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111398&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3094741720%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3094741720&rft_id=info:pmid/38810841&rft_els_id=S0895435624001537&rfr_iscdi=true |