SynthesisArthritis care & research2020
Systematic Review and Appraisal of the Cross-Cultural Validity of Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Synthesis in Arthritis care & research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Yoruba lequesne algofunctional index of knee osteoarthritis among patients with knee osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Predictors of functional capacity as measured by the Glittre activities of daily living test in women with rheumatoid arthritis.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2021Article
- Measures of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.Arthritis care & research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review and appraisal of the cross-cultural adaptation and cross-cultural validity of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and its derivatives, and of the more recent Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) functional status assessment measures (FSAMs) in rheumatoid arthritis.
methodsFour electronic medical databases were searched from inception until April 4, 2018 according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group search strategy. Included studies were evaluated using the COSMIN tool for cross-cultural validity and were scored as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
resultsOf 58 articles identified by our search strategy and 3 by manual search, 39 were included: 29 described the translation, cultural adaptation, or cross-cultural validity of the HAQ disability index, 8 other HAQ derivatives, and 2 PROMIS measures, representing 22 languages. Of the 39 articles reviewed, 3 examined the cross-cultural validity of translated versions. These studies were rated as follows: 2 as excellent, 3 good, 13 fair, and 21 poor. Two studies examining cross-cultural validity noted differential item functioning (DIF) between Dutch and US populations for the HAQ-II and PROMIS measures, and a third study found DIF between Turkish and UK populations on the HAQ, indicating cultural differences in questionnaire response.
conclusionThis review highlights a paucity of data on the cross-cultural validity of FSAMs and the mostly poor- or fair-quality methods by which they were translated and adapted, which needs to be considered when using these measures for multinational clinical trials and for day-to-day use in clinical practice.
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.