Skip header and navigation

Refine By

161 records – page 1 of 17.

Swedish translation and validation of the international skin tear advisory panel skin tear classification system.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature299875
Source
Int Wound J. 2019 Feb; 16(1):13-18
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Date
Feb-2019
Author
Ulrika Källman
Le Blanc Kimberly
Carina Bååth
Author Affiliation
Research and Development Department, South Älvsborg Hospital, Borås, Sweden.
Source
Int Wound J. 2019 Feb; 16(1):13-18
Date
Feb-2019
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Keywords
Humans
Lacerations - classification
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Skin - injuries
Sweden
Translations
Abstract
The aims of this study were to translate the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) classification system for skin tears into Swedish and to validate the translated system. The research process consisted of two phases. Phase I involved the translation of the classification system, using the forward-back translation method, and a consensus survey. The survey dictated that the best Swedish translation for "skin tear" was "hudfliksskada." In Phase 2, the classification system was validated by health care professionals attending a wound care conference held in the spring of 2017 in Sweden. Thirty photographs representing three types of skin tear were presented to participants in random order. Participants were directed to classify the skin tear types in a data collection sheet. The results indicated a moderate level of agreement on classification of skin tears by type. Achieving moderate agreement for the ISTAP skin tear tool is an important milestone as it demonstrates the validity and reliability of the tool. Skin tear classification typing is a complex skill that requires training and time to develop. More education is required for all health care specialists on the classification of skin tears.
PubMed ID
30191655 View in PubMed
Less detail

Rasch analysis resulted in an improved Norwegian version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS).

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature295415
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 10; 13:98-108
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Date
10-2016
Author
Nicolaas D Eland
Alice Kvåle
Raymond W J G Ostelo
Liv Inger Strand
Author Affiliation
Olsvik Institute for Manual Therapy, Postboks 522, 5884 Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: nic@eland.no.
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 10; 13:98-108
Date
10-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Keywords
Attitude
Attitude of Health Personnel
Humans
Norway
Pain
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
There is evidence that clinicians' pain attitudes and beliefs are associated with the pain beliefs and illness perceptions of their patients and furthermore influence their recommendations for activity and work to patients with back pain. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) is a questionnaire designed to differentiate between biomedical and biopsychosocial pain attitudes among health care providers regarding common low back pain. The original version had 36 items, and several shorter versions have been developed. Concern has been raised over the PABS' internal construct validity because of low internal consistency and low explained variance. The aim of this study was to examine and improve the scale's measurement properties and item performance.
A convenience sample of 667 Norwegian physiotherapists provided data for Rasch analysis. The biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales of the PABS were examined for unidimensionality, local response independency, invariance, response category function and targeting of persons and items. Reliability was measured with the person separation index (PSI). Items originally excluded by the developers of the scale because of skewness were re-introduced in a second analysis.
Our analysis suggested that both subscales required removal of several psychometrically redundant and misfitting items to satisfy the requirements of the Rasch measurement model. Most biopsychosocial items needed revision of their scoring structure. Furthermore, we identified two items originally excluded because of skewness that improved the reliability of the subscales after re-introduction. The ultimate result was two strictly unidimensional subscales, each consisting of seven items, with invariant item ordering and free from any form of misfit. The unidimensionality implies that summation of items to valid total scores is justified. Transformation tables are provided to convert raw ordinal scores to unbiased interval-level scores. Both subscales were adequately targeted at the ability level of our physiotherapist population. Reliability of the biomedical subscale as measured with the PSI was 0.69. A low PSI of 0.64 for the biopsychosocial subscale indicated limitations with regard to its discriminative ability.
Rasch analysis produced an improved Norwegian version of the PABS which represents true (fundamental) measurement of clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientation. However, researchers should be aware of the low discriminative ability of the biopsychosocial subscale when analyzing differences and effect changes.
The study presents a revised PABS that provides interval-level measurement of clinicians' pain beliefs. The revision allows for confident use of parametric statistical analysis. Further examination of discriminative validity is required.
Notes
CommentIn: Scand J Pain. 2016 Oct;13:140-141 PMID 28850517
PubMed ID
28850539 View in PubMed
Less detail

Construct validity and reliability of Finnish version of Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature295416
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 10; 13:148-153
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Date
10-2016
Author
Olli Ruokolainen
Marianne Haapea
Steven Linton
Katariina Korniloff
Arja Häkkinen
Markus Paananen
Jaro Karppinen
Author Affiliation
Center for Life Course Health Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Finland; Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. Electronic address: olli.ruokolainen@koti.fimnet.fi.
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 10; 13:148-153
Date
10-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Keywords
Finland
Humans
Low Back Pain - diagnosis
Musculoskeletal Pain - diagnosis
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
Chronic pain causes suffering for affected individuals and incurs costs to society through work disability. Interventions based on early screening of psychological risk factors for chronic pain using screening tools such as the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) have been found to reduce work absenteeism and health care visits and increase perceived health. The aim of the current study was to translate the ÖMPSQ into Finnish and test its validity and reliability in a patient sample.
The ÖMPSQ was forward-backward translated and cross-culturally adapted, and applied to our study population (n=69), the members of which had been referred to the Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine of Oulu University Hospital from primary health care centres in Northern Finland due to chronic low back pain. The patients answered the ÖMPSQ two weeks before the hospital visit, and the follow-up questionnaire either during the hospital visit, or after by mail. The reliability of the ÖMPSQ was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Factor analysis was used to group items of the ÖMPSQ, and internal consistency between the items was determined by calculating Cronbach's alphas.
The cross-cultural adaptation revealed only minor semantic and cultural differences. Measurements showed reliability as moderate to nearly perfect for all of the ÖMPSQ items (ICC values ranged from 0.59 to 0.96). Items loaded into five different factors: disability, psychological symptoms, pain, fear avoidance, and work. All except one (work) showed acceptable internal consistency. The ÖMPSQ score was positively associated with both intensity of pain and the Oswestry Disability Index.
The reliability and construct validity of the Finnish version of the ÖMPSQ were good. The predictive ability of the ÖMPSQ in the Finnish population should be evaluated in further studies.
PubMed ID
28850521 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Linguistic adaptation of the Russian version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature294942
Source
Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2016; 116(7):42-45
Publication Type
Journal Article
Author
M A Bakhtadze
D A Bolotov
K O Kuzminov
M P Padun
O B Zakharova
Author Affiliation
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University named after, Moscow, Russia.
Source
Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2016; 116(7):42-45
Language
Russian
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Adult
Consensus
Female
Humans
Language
Linguistics
Pain Measurement
Reproducibility of Results
Russia
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
Linguistic adaptation of the Russian version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2), which is conceptually equivalent to the original questionnaire.
The adaptation of the Russian version of SF-MPQ-2 was performed in accordance to established rules in several stages by two independent translators with the development of a consensus Russian version and its back translation by two independent translators and development of a consensus English version. The final Russian SF-MPQ-2 version was then created.
The Russian version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2-RU) was generated based on the established rules. This version was legally registered by the right holder - Mapi Research Trust and recommended for research in the Russian Federation.
???? ????????????. ??????????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???-??????????? ???????? ????????? (The McGill Pain Questionnaire) (SF-MPQ-2), ????????????? ????????????? ?????????. ???????? ? ??????. ????????? ??????? ?????? SF-MPQ-2 ????????? ?? ????????????? ???????? ? ????????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ????? ??????????????? ????????????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ??????. ? ????? ???? ?????????? ????????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????????. ?????????? ? ??????????. ???????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???-??????????? ???????? ????????? - SF-MPQ-2-RU. ?????? ????????? ?? ????????????? ????????, ?????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? - ?????????? Mapi Research Trust ? ????????????? ??? ?????????? ? ??????? ????????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????.
PubMed ID
27500875 View in PubMed
Less detail

Translation and validation of the Finnish version of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ).

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature294250
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 01; 10:113-118
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Date
01-2016
Author
Henri Terho
Marianne Haapea
Markus Paananen
Katariina Korniloff
Arja Häkkinen
Jaro Karppinen
Author Affiliation
Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Source
Scand J Pain. 2016 01; 10:113-118
Date
01-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Keywords
Fear
Finland
Humans
Low Back Pain - physiopathology
Quality of Life
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) is a debilitating problem worldwide causing disability and reducing quality of life. The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) was developed on the basis of the assumption that fear-avoidance beliefs play a major role in LBP-related disability. It comprises 16 items scored by the patient and includes sub-scores for fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work and physical activity. This study aimed to translate and validate the Finnish version of the FABQ and to measure its properties among Finnish patients with LBP.
A forward-backward translation procedure was used based on modified recommended guidelines. The FABQ was applied to 66 Finnish patients with LBP. Patients answered the FABQ at baseline and again approximately two weeks later. The test-re-test reliability between the baseline and follow-up FABQ was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Internal consistency between the items within total and sub-scores was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's alpha. The items of the baseline FABQ were grouped using factor analysis and the correlations between the FABQ, pain intensity in visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed using linear regression analysis.
The Finnish version of the FABQ was successfully adapted. The mean age of patients was 46. Almost all patients (97%) reported LBP, most patients (76%) had chronic pain lasting more than 3 months and the mean intensity of LBP was 58mm on VAS. The follow-up time between the first and second questionnaire ranged from 2 days to 59 days with the median of 16 days. The ICC value for reliability between the baseline and follow-up questionnaires was excellent for the total score (0.91) and work sub-score (0.89), and good for the physical activity sub-score (0.73). The items regarding work showed high or excellent reliability throughout, with ICC values ranging from 0.63 to 0.89. The ICC values for the items related to physical activity ranged from 0.43 to 0.66, displaying moderate to good reliability. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was excellent for the total score (0.92) and work (0.89), and good for physical activity (0.71). The best factor analysis solution yielded three factors characterized by the fear that pain aggravates due to (1) work or (2) physical activity, and (3) fear-avoidance beliefs concerning work. Higher total FABQ score was associated significantly with higher VAS (p-value 0.021) and ODI (
Notes
CommentIn: Scand J Pain. 2016 Jan;10:111-112 PMID 28361760
PubMed ID
28361761 View in PubMed
Less detail

Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291500
Source
J Interprof Care. 2016 Nov; 30(6):804-811
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Nov-2016
Author
Sverre Størkson
Eva Biringer
Miriam Hartveit
Jörg Aßmus
Kris Vanhaecht
Author Affiliation
a Helse Vest IKT , Haugesund , Norway.
Source
J Interprof Care. 2016 Nov; 30(6):804-811
Date
Nov-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Humans
Norway
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
The Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET) assesses key characteristics of well-organised care processes in hospitals from an interprofessional team perspective. The present study investigated the psychometric properties of the CPSET in terms of factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability in Norwegian language and context. After a pilot test, the Norwegian version of the questionnaire was administered as a web form to 501 health professionals in public general hospitals and mental health specialist services; 301 completed forms (response rate 60%) were returned, and 268 (54%) forms representing 27 care processes (19 from somatic care and 8 from mental healthcare) were included in the valid sample. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the original five-factor structure. All model fit indices, including the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), which is independent of the ?2-test, met the criteria for an acceptable model fit. Internal consistencies within sub-scales as measured by Cronbach's alpha were high (range 0.83-0.94). As expected, some redundancy between factors existed (in particular among the PO (Patient-focused organisation), COR (Coordination of the care process), COM (Communication with patient and family), and PO (Follow-up of the care process) factors). In conclusion, the Norwegian CPSET scale showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of convergent validity and reliability, and fit indices from the CFA confirmed the original factor structure. Based on these findings, we recommend the Norwegian version of the CPSET for use in the assessment of interprofessional teamwork in care processes in specialist healthcare.
PubMed ID
27459413 View in PubMed
Less detail

Nursing workload, patient safety incidents and mortality: an observational study from Finland.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature298278
Source
BMJ Open. 2018 04 24; 8(4):e016367
Publication Type
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Date
04-24-2018
Author
Lisbeth Fagerström
Marina Kinnunen
Jan Saarela
Author Affiliation
Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland.
Source
BMJ Open. 2018 04 24; 8(4):e016367
Date
04-24-2018
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Keywords
Finland
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Nursing Staff, Hospital
Patient Safety
Personnel Staffing and Scheduling
Reproducibility of Results
Workload
Abstract
To investigate whether the daily workload per nurse (Oulu Patient Classification (OPCq)/nurse) as measured by the RAFAELA system correlates with different types of patient safety incidents and with patient mortality, and to compare the results with regressions based on the standard patients/nurse measure.
We obtained data from 36 units from four Finnish hospitals. One was a tertiary acute care hospital, and the three others were secondary acute care hospitals.
Patients' nursing intensity (249?123 classifications), nursing resources, patient safety incidents and patient mortality were collected on a daily basis during 1?year, corresponding to 12?475 data points. Associations between OPC/nurse and patient safety incidents or mortality were estimated using unadjusted logistic regression models, and models that adjusted for ward-specific effects, and effects of day of the week, holiday and season.
Main outcome measures were patient safety incidents and death of a patient.
When OPC/nurse was above the assumed optimal level, the adjusted odds for a patient safety incident were 1.24 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.42) that of the assumed optimal level, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.93) if it was below the assumed optimal level. Corresponding estimates for patient mortality were 1.43 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.73) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.00), respectively. As compared with the patients/nurse classification, models estimated on basis of the RAFAELA classification system generally provided larger effect sizes, greater statistical power and better model fit, although the difference was not very large. Net benefits as calculated on the basis of decision analysis did not provide any clear evidence on which measure to prefer.
We have demonstrated an association between daily workload per nurse and patient safety incidents and mortality. Current findings need to be replicated by future studies.
PubMed ID
29691240 View in PubMed
Less detail

A psychometric evaluation of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) in a Swedish sample.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature295312
Source
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Dec; 58(6):477-484
Publication Type
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Date
Dec-2017
Author
Beatrice Nystrom
Hans Bengtsson
Author Affiliation
Department of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden.
Source
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Dec; 58(6):477-484
Date
Dec-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Keywords
Child
Child Behavior - physiology
Female
Humans
Male
Personality Assessment - standards
Psychometrics - standards
Reproducibility of Results
Sweden
Temperament - physiology
Abstract
Personality is generally considered to be biologically founded in temperament, and temperamental qualities have proven to be relatively stable across childhood and into adulthood (Caspi, Roberts & Shiner, ). Temperament predicts important developmental outcomes such as academic performance (Muris, ), and social functioning (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie & Reiser, ), and it has also been found to be strongly related to the etiology and maintenance of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology in children (Muris, Meesters & Blijlevens, ; Nigg, ). To allow for the possibility of making early interventions, identification of potential risk factors (such as temperamental dispositions) is of great importance (Rettew & McKee, ). As temperament is multidimensional and has many different manifestations, parents and teachers are valuable sources in providing information about children's temperament (Rothbart & Bates, ; Tackett, Slobodskaya, Mar et al., ), and caregiver questionnaires are frequently used in child personality research. However, such questionnaires are only useful if their reliability and validity have been established. The aim of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ; Simonds, Kieras, Rueda & Rothbart, ), which focuses specifically on the ages between 7 and 11 years. The TMCQ is the least validated of the Rothbart measures, and although reliability data have been presented, together with some validity data, for a computerized self-report version of the questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, ), information about the reliability and validity for the caregiver version is scant. In the present paper, we report such data for a Swedish sample.
PubMed ID
28983922 View in PubMed
Less detail

Psychometric evaluation of the Texas revised inventory of grief in a sample of bereaved family caregivers.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature298929
Source
Res Nurs Health. 2018 10; 41(5):480-488
Publication Type
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Date
10-2018
Author
Maja Holm
Anette Alvariza
Carl-Johan Fürst
Joakim Öhlen
Kristofer Årestedt
Author Affiliation
Department of Nursing Sciences, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Source
Res Nurs Health. 2018 10; 41(5):480-488
Date
10-2018
Language
English
Publication Type
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Keywords
Adaptation, Psychological
Caregivers - psychology
Female
Grief
Humans
Male
Psychological Tests - standards
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Sweden
Abstract
The Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) was developed to measure the intensity of grief after the death of a close person. It consists of two scales: TRIG I (past behaviors) and TRIG II (present feelings). Because of inconsistencies in previous validations, the instrument needs to be further validated, hence the aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TRIG in a sample of bereaved family caregivers in Sweden. The TRIG was translated to Swedish according to standard principles, and 129 bereaved family caregivers completed the questionnaire. Parallel analysis was used to decide the number of factors to extract, followed by confirmatory factor analysis. An ordinal version of Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the scales. Construct validity was tested against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The factor analyses resulted in one factor being retained for both scales. The internal consistency was excellent (a?>?0.9) for both scales. Construct validity was supported by strong correlations between TRIG I and TRIG II as well as moderate correlations between the TRIG scales and HADS. In conclusion, the TRIG has sound psychometric qualities and the two scales should be treated as unidimensional measures of grief. Hence, the instrument is suited to be used in the context of palliative care.
PubMed ID
30311668 View in PubMed
Less detail

The reproducibility of self-reported age at menarche: The Tromsø Study.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature292103
Source
BMC Womens Health. 2017 Aug 22; 17(1):62
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Aug-22-2017
Author
Marie Wasmuth Lundblad
Bjarne K Jacobsen
Author Affiliation
Department of Community Medicine, UiT- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Marie.w.lundblad@uit.no.
Source
BMC Womens Health. 2017 Aug 22; 17(1):62
Date
Aug-22-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Female
Humans
Menarche - physiology
Menstrual Cycle - physiology
Middle Aged
Norway
Reproducibility of Results
Self Report
Abstract
Previous studies of the reproducibility of self-reported age at menarche have been limited because of small study samples, short follow-up and the limited age span of the women included.
The present study assessed the reproducibility of age at menarche in 6731 women with a wide variation of age when giving the information about age at menarche. The women reported age at menarche in a self-administered questionnaire, both in 1986-1987 and 1994-1995. They were all residents of Tromsø, Norway, and aged 25-73 in 1994-1995. In order to investigate the agreement between self-reported age at menarche at the two points in time, Pearson's correlation coefficient was applied to assess the linear correlation between the reported menarcheal age at the two occasions. Analyses were stratified for age. A Bland-Altman plot was produced and limits of agreement computed.
We found a high correlation and a strong agreement between self-reported age at menarche in 1986-1987 and 1994-1995. The overall Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.84 and was not attenuated by increasing age of the women. The Bland-Altman plot showed a strong agreement in self-reported age at menarche. The mean difference between self-reported age at menarche was 0.01 years with limits of agreement -1.52 to 1.54.
We found high reproducibility of self-reported age at menarche. The mean menarcheal age in the two surveys was identical (13.2 years) with 95% of the women reporting the same age at menarche or with a difference of 1 year. Only 0.7% of the women reported age at menarche with a difference of more than 2 years in 1986-1987 and 1994-1995.
Notes
Cites: Dev Psychol. 2013 Jun;49(6):1187-93 PMID 22889389
Cites: S Afr Med J. 2001 Mar;91(3):184-5 PMID 11291408
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Sep;54(9):902-6 PMID 11520649
Cites: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Dec;94(12 ):4953-60 PMID 19880785
Cites: J Youth Adolesc. 1988 Apr;17(2):117-33 PMID 24277579
Cites: PLoS One. 2014 Aug 04;9(8):e103673 PMID 25090234
Cites: BMC Public Health. 2009 Dec 03;9:446 PMID 19958543
Cites: Adolescence. 1991 Spring;26(101):41-53 PMID 2048480
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26076 PMID 22028807
Cites: Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;38(1):245-52 PMID 19188208
Cites: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Feb;144(1):1-10 PMID 24477977
Cites: Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51 PMID 26110027
Cites: Dev Psychol. 2001 Sep;37(5):608-19 PMID 11552757
Cites: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Apr;98(4):1612-21 PMID 23471979
Cites: Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2014 Jan 16;13:22 PMID 24438044
Cites: Midwifery. 2011 Apr;27(2):203-8 PMID 19775784
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Sep 14;12:143 PMID 22978749
Cites: BMC Public Health. 2010 Mar 30;10:175 PMID 20353570
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1306-14 PMID 20843863
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jul 1;180(1):29-40 PMID 24920784
Cites: Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87(6):1876-82 PMID 18541580
Cites: Lancet Oncol. 2012 Nov;13(11):1141-51 PMID 23084519
Cites: Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Aug;37(8):1036-43 PMID 23164700
Cites: Hum Biol. 1995 Oct;67(5):739-53 PMID 8543288
Cites: Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):e43 PMID 12359816
Cites: Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010 Sep 30;8:115 PMID 20920296
Cites: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Nov;60(11):910-1 PMID 17053275
Cites: Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Aug;41(4):961-7 PMID 21422063
Cites: Scand J Soc Med. 1989;17(1):109-19 PMID 2711141
Cites: J Clin Nurs. 2010 Feb;19(3-4):447-60 PMID 20500285
Cites: Am J Hum Biol. 1991;3(2):105-110 PMID 28520241
Cites: Circulation. 2015 Jan 20;131(3):237-44 PMID 25512444
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Apr 1;155(7):672-9 PMID 11914195
Cites: Obes Res. 2001 Aug;9(8):478-85 PMID 11500528
Cites: Diabetologia. 2012 Mar;55(3):681-8 PMID 22170465
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Nov 15;164(10):1003-11 PMID 16928728
Cites: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Nov;60(11):993-7 PMID 17053289
PubMed ID
28830397 View in PubMed
Less detail

161 records – page 1 of 17.