Fatigue Measurement
Cross-source consensus on Fatigue Measurement from 1 sources and 5 claims.
1 sources · 5 claims
Evidence quality
Where it comes from
Other
Highlighted claims
- The registry recorded total and subscale scores but not item-level responses. — Fatigue after COVID-19 in occupationally exposed workers: prevalence, severity and associated risk factors in a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre registry study
- The three instruments measure cognitive and physical fatigue, with higher scores indicating more severe fatigue. — Fatigue after COVID-19 in occupationally exposed workers: prevalence, severity and associated risk factors in a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre registry study
- The study used validated self-administered questionnaires as proxy fatigue measures because no PCS-specific fatigue instrument was available. — Fatigue after COVID-19 in occupationally exposed workers: prevalence, severity and associated risk factors in a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre registry study
- Only participants assessed with FSMC, MFIS, or WEIMuS were included. — Fatigue after COVID-19 in occupationally exposed workers: prevalence, severity and associated risk factors in a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre registry study
- Pooling transformed scores improved comparability but might not preserve subtle construct differences across questionnaires. — Fatigue after COVID-19 in occupationally exposed workers: prevalence, severity and associated risk factors in a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre registry study