ArticleClinical rheumatology2014
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian version of the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ).
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on upper limb function in patients with systemic sclerosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Activity-Based Functional Exercise for Disability in Systemic Sclerosis: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Thai version of the Systemic Sclerosis Health Assessment Questionnaire.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Translation and validation of the Persian version of the scleroderma health assessment questionnaire (SHAQ).Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Validation of Turkish version of the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ) is a feasible multisystem specific tool that has been extensively used as an additional assessment for systemic sclerosis (SSc). The aim of this study is to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Brazilian version of the SHAQ. Construct validity was assessed based on the correlations between SHAQ and both the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2™) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). The correlation between the SHAQ and disease severity was assessed by Spearman's correlation coefficient. The reproducibility of the SHAQ was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Among the 151 consecutive outpatients evaluated, 59 % had limited SSc subtype. The overall disease severity visual analog scale (VAS) of the SHAQ was statistically significantly correlated to HAQ-DI, pain VAS, and the SF-36v2™ physical component summary score (r = 0.595, r = 0.612, and r = -0.582, respectively; p < 0.001). Further analysis of all SF-36v2™ components revealed statistically significant correlations between overall disease severity VAS and bodily pain (r = -0.621, p < 0.001), vitality (r = -0.544, p < 0.001), physical function (r = -0.510, p < 0.001), and role limitation-physical dimensions (r = -0.505, p < 0.001). Moreover, digestive, pulmonary, and overall disease severity VASs were statistically significantly correlated to the number of organs involved (r = 0.178, p = 0.029; r = 0.214, p = 0.008; r = 0.282, p < 0.001). We also demonstrated high reproducibility for SHAQ (ICC = 0.757, 95 % confidence interval = 0.636-0.842). The Brazilian version of the SHAQ demonstrated both construct and discriminant validities as well as good reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23975361What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.