ArticleEuropean journal of plastic surgery2017
Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q: a description of the process.
Article in European journal of plastic surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content validity of self-reports of excess skin after bariatric surgery: protocol for a Dutch cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- German Translation and Linguistic Validation of the LIMB‑Q: A Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Lower Extremity Trauma.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the CRS-PRO questionnaire into French.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023Article
- Validation of the Dutch Version of the BODY-Q Measuring Appearance, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Experience of Healthcare in Patients Undergoing Bariatric and Body Contouring Surgery.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2023Article
- How Valid and Reliable Is the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) When Translated into Another Language?Dysphagia · 2023Article
- Translation and cultural adaptation of the pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire to Spanish and Catalan.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- German Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Limb Deformity-Scoliosis Research Society (LD-SRS) Questionnaire.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Patients Decision-Making Characteristics Affects Gynecomastia Treatment Satisfaction: A Multicenter Study Using the BODY-Q Chest Module.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2022Article
- The Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ): Translation and Cognitive Debriefing of the Arabic Version.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation into French and validation of the SCAR-Q questionnaire.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- International mixed methods study protocol to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for all types of chronic wounds (the WOUND-Q).BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Psychometric Validation of the BODY-Q in Danish Patients Undergoing Weight Loss and Body Contouring Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are increasingly being included in research and clinical practice to assess the patient point of view. Bariatric and body contouring surgery has the potential to improve or restore a patient's body image and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). A new PRO instrument, called the BODY-Q, has recently been developed specifically for this patient group. The aim of the current study was to translate and perform a linguistic validation of the BODY-Q for use in Danish bariatric and body contouring patients.
methodsThe translation was performed in accordance with the International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Main steps taken included forward and backward translations, an expert panel meeting, and cognitive patient interviews. All translators aimed to conduct a conceptual translation rather than a literal translation and used a simple and clear formulation to create a translation understandable for all patients.
resultsThe linguistic translation process led to a conceptually equivalent Danish version of the BODY-Q. The comparison between the back translation of the first Danish version and the original English version of the BODY-Q identified 18 items or instructions requiring re-translation. The expert panel helped to identify and resolve inadequate expressions and concepts of the translation. The panel identified 31 items or instructions that needed to be changed, while the cognitive interviews led to seven major revisions.
conclusionsThe impact of weight loss methods such as bariatric surgery and body contouring surgery on patients' HR-QOL would benefit from input from the patient perspective. A thorough translation and linguistic validation must be considered an essential step when implementing a PRO instrument to another language and/or culture. A combination of the ISPOR and WHO guidelines contributed to a straightforward and thorough translation methodology well suited for a Danish translation of the BODY-Q. The described method of translation and linguistic validation can be recommended for future translations of PRO instruments in the field of plastic surgery. Level of Evidence: Not ratable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.