ArticleArab journal of urology2017
Validation of the Arabic version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder questionnaire in Egyptian patients with bladder cancer.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Systematic Review.Oncology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Quality of Life Scales for Arabic-Speaking Adults: A systematic review.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2020Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life after radical cystectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Is robotic approach useful to palliate advanced bladder cancer? A monocentric single surgeon experience.Central European journal of urology · 2019Article
- Translation and Validation of the Arabic Version of the Cancer Needs Questionnaire-Short Form.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo validate the Arabic version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder (FACT-Bl) questionnaire in Egyptian patients who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) and orthotopic neobladder (ONB) construction. PATIENTS SUBJECTS AND
methodsThe English version of the FACT-Bl was translated into the Arabic language using multi-step process by two urologist and two independent translators. The Arabic version was validated by inviting 90 patients who underwent RC and ONB and 72 normal individuals to complete the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested for internal consistency using the Cronbach's
resultsInternal consistency was high for all domains. There was high correlation between all domains. This high internal consistency and good correlation was maintained when assessment included patients with <7.5 and those with ≥7.5 years follow-up. Discrimination validation was confirmed by the statistically significant lower scores of all domains in the studied patients in comparison to the controls.
conclusionThe Arabic version of the FACT-Bl is a reliable and validated instrument that can be used to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients after RC and ONB.
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.