ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022
Translation and cultural adaptation of the pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire to Spanish and Catalan.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. 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.
- Experiences of living with funnel chest prior to corrective surgery: An interview study.PloS one · 2024Article
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
purposePectus excavatum (PE) is the most common congenital chest wall deformity. It can have a negative effect in exercise tolerance. However, cosmetic features are the most frequent concerns in these patients. The PE evaluation questionnaire (PEEQ) is a patient reported outcome (PRO) tool to measure the physical and psychosocial quality-of-life changes after surgical repair of PE. No specific tool has been developed in our languages to evaluate PRO in PE patients. Our aim is to translate and culturally adapt the PEEQ to Spanish and Catalan.
methodsGuidelines for translation of PRO were followed. The PEEQ, consisting of 34 items, was translated from English to Spanish and to Catalan. Three forward translations and one back translation were performed for each language. Cognitive debriefing interviews were developed.
resultsThe reconciliation of the forward translations revealed a 14.7% of inconsistencies for each language. The Spanish back translation showed a 64.7% of disagreement with the source, the Catalan 58.8%. Changes in each reconciled version were made to amend the diverting items. Cognitive debriefing: Catalan version: 15 participants, 10 males, 5 patients had been operated. 12 patients showed difficulties for understanding 4 of the items. Spanish version: 17 participants, 11 males, 5 had been operated. 13 patients showed difficulties for understanding 4 of the items. We made modifications of the problematic items, in order to make them easier to understand for our patients. We tested the last version in a new group of patients. Catalan: 7 patients, 5 males. One patient showed difficulties for understanding item 11, so we added a further clarification of this item. Spanish: 7 patients, all males. There were any difficulties for understanding.
conclusionAfter a thorough process of translation and cultural adaptation, we reached a Catalan and a Spanish version of PEEQ. This work constitutes the first step to reach a specific PE PRO tool in our languages. However, it needs to be validated, with a higher number of patients, before being widely used in a clinical setting.
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.