ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2019
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the underactive bladder questionnaire to portuguese.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation and validation of the Portuguese version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) Bladder Diary.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the current study was to perform the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Underactive Bladder Questionnaire (UAB-q).
methodsThe study design included the Portuguese translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the UAB-q in 90 patients from a urology outpatient clinic following international methodology. The psychometric properties tested were the validity, reliability, internal consistency and stability of the instrument.
resultsThe content validity index at the item (I-CVI) and scale level (S-CVI) were above 0.80 and did not require changes. Regarding the reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha was 0.79. The internal consistency and the base time stability (test-retest) had excellent indexes; all were above 0.90.
conclusionsThese results indicate that the UAB-q is a valid, reproducible and reliable instrument for screening underactive bladders and is a potentially useful tool to guide health actions and improve the care of underactive patients.
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.