ArticleBMC family practice2017
The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in three European languages.
Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in Turkish.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- Prospective Observational Study on the Prevalence and Diagnostic Value of General Practitioners' Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Diseases.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Observational
- Patients' gut feelings seem useful in primary care professionals' decision making.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Navigating complexity of child abuse through intuition and evidence-based guidelines: a mix-methods study among child and youth healthcare practitioners.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Observational
- Observational
- Cross-cultural translation and validation of the 'gut feelings' questionnaire into Spanish and Catalan.The European journal of general practice · 2019Article
- Gut Feelings Questionnaire in daily practice: a feasibility study using a mixed-methods approach in three European countries.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians' clinical decision-making may be influenced by non-analytical thinking, especially when perceiving uncertainty. Incidental gut feelings in general practice have been described, namely, as "a sense of alarm" and "a sense of reassurance". A Dutch Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) was developed, validated and afterwards translated into English following a linguistic validation procedure. The aims were to translate the GFQ from English into French, German and Polish; to describe uniform elements as well as differences and difficulties in the linguistic validation processes; to propose a procedural scheme for future GFQ translations into other languages.
methodsWe followed a structured, similar and equivalent procedure. Forward and backward-translations, repeated consensus procedures and cultural validations performed in six steps. Exchanges between the several research teams, the authors of the Dutch GFQ, and the translators involved continued throughout the procedure.
results12 translators, 52 GPs and 8 researchers in the field participated to the study in France, Germany, Switzerland and Poland. The collaborating research teams created three versions of the 10-item GFQ. Each research team found and agreed on compromises between comparability and similarity on one hand, and linguistic and cultural specificities on the other.
conclusionsThe gut feeling questionnaire is now available in five European languages: Dutch, English, French, German and Polish. The uniform procedural validation scheme presented, and agreed upon by the teams, can be used for the translation of the GFQ into other languages. Comparing results of research into the predictive value of gut feelings and into the significance of the main determinants in five European countries is now possible.
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.