Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34639729›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

A Systematic Review of Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Oral Health Literacy Tools.

Sobiya Praveen, Jinal Parmar, Navira Chandio, Amit Arora

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Quality of the adaptation procedures and psychometric properties of the scale of oral health outcomes for 5-year-old children (SOHO-5): a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

4 authors.

Sobiya PraveenSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
Jinal ParmarSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8107-0902
Navira ChandioSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5252-8286
Amit AroraSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1665-5568

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this systematic review were to critically appraise the quality of the cross-cultural adaptation and the psychometric properties of the translated versions of oral health literacy assessment tools. CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis were searched systematically. Studies focusing on cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of oral health literacy tools were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Sixteen oral health literacy instruments in 11 different languages were included in this systematic review. However, only seven instruments met the criteria for an accurate cross-cultural adaptation process, while the remaining tools failed to meet at least one criterion for suitable quality of cross-cultural adaptation process. None of the studies evaluated all the aspects of psychometric properties. Most of the studies reported internal consistency, reliability, structural validity, and construct validity. Despite adequate ratings for some reported psychometric properties, the methodological quality of studies on translated versions of oral health literacy tools was mostly doubtful to inadequate. Researchers and clinicians should follow standard guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation and assess all aspects of psychometric properties for using oral health literacy tools in cross-cultural settings.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonHealth LiteracyChecklistPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairescross-cultural adaptationoral health literacypsychometric propertiestranslation

Identifiers

PMID34639729
PMCPMC8508111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.