ArticleBMJ open2021
Influence of language skills on the choice of terms used to describe lung sounds in a language other than English: a cross-sectional survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe value of chest auscultation would be enhanced by the use of a standardised terminology. To that end, the recommended English terminology must be transferred to a language other than English (LOTE) without distortion.
objectiveTo examine the transfer to Hebrew-taken as a model of LOTE-of the recommended terminology in English. DESIGN/
settingCross-sectional study; university-based hospital.
participants143 caregivers, including 31 staff physicians, 65 residents and 47 medical students.
methodsObservers provided uninstructed descriptions in Hebrew and English of audio recordings of five common sounds, namely, normal breath sound (NBS), wheezes, crackles, stridor and pleural friction rub (PFR). OUTCOMES: (a) Rates of correct/incorrect classification; (b) correspondence between Hebrew and recommended English terms; c) language and auscultation skills, assessed by crossing the responses in the two languages with each other and with the classification of the audio recordings validated by computer analysis.
resultsRange (%) of correct rating was as follows: NBS=11.3-20, wheezes=79.7-87.2, crackles=58.6-69.8, stridor=67.4-96.3 and PFR=2.7-28.6. Of 60 Hebrew terms, 11 were correct, and 5 matched the recommended English terms. Many Hebrew terms were adaptations or transliterations of inadequate English terms. Of 687 evaluations, good dual-language and single-language skills were found in 586 (85.3%) and 41 (6%), respectively. However, in 325 (47.3%) evaluations, good language skills were associated with poor auscultation skills.
conclusionPoor auscultation skills surpassed poor language skills as a factor hampering the transfer to Hebrew (LOTE) of the recommended English terminology. Improved education in auscultation emerged as the main factor to promote the use of standardised lung sound terminology. Using our data, a strategy was devised to encourage the use of standardised terminology in non-native English-speaking countries.
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.