Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28521742›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in three European languages.

Marie Barais, Johannes Hauswaldt, Daniel Hausmann, Slawomir Czachowski, Agnieszka Sowinska, Paul Van Royen, Erik Stolper

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in Turkish.The European journal of general practice · 2023
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Marie BaraisERCR SPURBO, Department of General Practice, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France. marie.barais@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0535-8258
Johannes HauswaldtDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Daniel HausmannDepartment of Psychology - Applied Social and Health Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Slawomir CzachowskiClinical Psychology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.
Agnieszka SowinskaDepartment of English Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.
Paul Van RoyenDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Erik StolperDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Nicolaus Copernicus University · PLUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversité de Bretagne Occidentale · FRUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Decision-MakingGeneral PractitionersHumansLinguisticsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslating

Identifiers

PMID28521742
PMCPMC5437565
OpenAlexW2614335152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.