ArticleClinical rheumatology2019
Cross-cultural adaptation of the connective tissue disease screening questionnaire and development of a Chinese version in a multi-ethnic Asian population.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo cross-culturally adapt the Connective Tissue Disease (CTD) Screening Questionnaire (CSQ) in a multi-ethnic Asian population in Singapore.
methodsAn expert panel of accredited rheumatologists evaluated the content validity of the original CSQ. Consenting participants newly referred from primary care to a rheumatology specialist outpatient clinic for evaluation of possible CTDs were studied. Cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) using the original CSQ were conducted with English-speaking participants, with modifications made based on their inputs and in discussion with a second expert panel (rheumatologists and the CSQ developers). Forward and back translations of the adapted English version were reviewed by the second expert panel. The common translation produced was tested in CDIs with Chinese-speaking participants. Adapted English and Chinese versions were pilot tested in a separate group of newly referred patients.
resultsContent validity of the original CSQ was confirmed by the expert panel. A total of 30 and 15 participants were recruited for English and Chinese CDIs, respectively. Alternative terms and explanatory notes were added to difficult medical terms in the adapted English CSQ. A further explanatory note was added to one difficult item, and English medical terms were retained in the Chinese version. Pilot testing of the adapted CSQ was performed on 116 participants, which exhibited an overall sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 58%, respectively, in identifying CTDs.
conclusionsThe adapted CSQ demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity in the pilot testing and appears to be a promising tool for facilitating early identification of CTDs in the multi-ethnic Asian population. KEY POINTS: • Early identification and management of patients with CTDs is crucial given their high disease burden and short "windows of opportunity." • High reliability and validity of original CSQ and its cross-culturally adapted versions have been reported; however, the CSQ has not been validated in Southeast Asia where CTDs are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to other countries. • Our cross-culturally adapted CSQ demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity in identifying CTDs in the multi-ethnic Asian population.
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.