Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34499238›Full record

Observational studyArchives of osteoporosis2021

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31 (QUALEFFO-31).

Bugra Ince, Okan Kucukakkas

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04259099 (Validation of the Turkish Version of Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04259099 terminatednot on this map

Validation of the Turkish Version of Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31 (QUALEFFO-31)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBugra InceRan2020 to 2021Enrolled111ConditionsOsteoporosisArmsTesting the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-31(QUALEFFO-31)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bugra InceDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. bugra.ince@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7467-4073
Okan KucukakkasDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6971-4229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reveals the Turkish version of QUALEFFO-31 has a sufficient level of reliability, validity, and psychometric properties. The questionnaire, which is potentially capable of differentiating patients with fractures, does not appear to have the differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis. PURPOSE: This study aims to conduct the reliability and validity study of QUALEFFO-31 in Turkish and to evaluate the capacity of the questionnaire to distinguish patients in terms of osteoporosis.

methodsThe original English version was translated into Turkish by two translators whose native language was Turkish. Subsequently, this Turkish version was translated back into English by two different bilingual translators whose native language was English. After this preliminary questionnaire was tested in 30 patients, words, terminology, information errors, and parts difficult to understand were revised, and the questionnaire was finalized. Internal consistency and test-retest analyses were used for the reliability study. For the validity study, convergent-discriminant validity, concurrent validity, factor analysis, known-group validity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed.

resultsA total of 111 patients were evaluated. Internal consistency levels were optimal except for the mental function. ICC coefficients showed good retest reliability for all domains and total tests. The convergent and discriminant validity ratios for the mental function domain were 78% for both and 100% for the other domains. There was a moderate and good negative correlation between QUALEFFO-31 and SF-36 domains which had similar names. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 3 structures. However, there was a spread to the other factors in physical function domain items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) markers were not at a very good fitting level except for the relative chi-square index. When CFA was performed according to the assumed model, the fitting level increased in all analyses. There was no significant differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis or fracture for either QUALEFFO-31 or SF-36.

conclusionThe Turkish version of QUALEFFO-31 has a sufficient level of reliability, validity, and psychometric properties. Nevertheless, improvements in pain and mental function domains and some changes applying to the model may increase the psychometric capacity of the questionnaire. The questionnaire, which is potentially capable of differentiating patients with fractures, does not appear to have the differential capacity in terms of osteoporosis. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04259099 (date of registration: February 6, 2020).

Indexed as

OsteoporosisQuality of LifeHumansLanguagePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesOsteoporosisQUALEFFO-31ReliabilityTurkishValidation

Identifiers

PMID34499238
PMCPMC8426330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.