ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery
Brazilian-Portuguese Linguistic Validation of the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcome Instrument.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Velopharyngeal Inadequacy-Related Quality of Life Assessment: The Instrument Development and Application Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Predicting Communication-Related Quality of Life in Children With Velopharyngeal Dysfunction.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Patient-reported outcomes measure for patients with cleft palate.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to conduct a linguistic validation of the velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcome (VELO) instrument for use in Brazilian-Portuguese patients with VPI.
methodsThe original English version of the VELO instrument was translated into Brazilian-Portuguese, back-translated, and adapted among the Brazilian patients (n = 21) with VPI and their parents, based on the standardized guidelines for the cross-culture adaption process. Discrepancies in the forward and backward translation steps were computed. Comprehension rates were captured for each debriefing interview. The content validity index (CVI) per item (I-CVI) and of the scale (S-CVI universal agreement [S-CVI/UA] and averaging [S-CVI/Ave]) were calculated.
resultsReconciliation of the 2 forward translations and the comparison between the back translation and the original VELO version resulted in some item wordings with discrepancies which were reviewed by the research team (translators, expert committee, and original developers of instrument). Three rounds of cognitive interviews also led to some revisions of wording. Comprehension rates of patients and their parents were 60% to 100%, 80% to 100%, and 100% in the first, second, and third rounds of cognitive interviews, respectively. The I-CVI, S-CVI/AU, and SCI/Ave for the Brazilian-Portuguese VELO version were 0.83 (or higher), 0.83 (or higher), and 0.97, respectively.
conclusionsThe linguistic validation process of the VELO instrument created a cross-culturally equivalent Brazilian-Portuguese version for use in Brazilian-Portuguese speaking patients with VPI.
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.