ArticleHNO2023
[Validation of the German language version of the Chronic Ear Survey and its psychometric comparison with an established German language measurement instrument. German version].
Article in HNO, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the Chronic Ear Survey (CES), a validated measurement instrument for the assessment of disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been available internationally since 2000. The aim of this study was to provide a validated German version of this international instrument and to compare it with the German Chronic Otitis Media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15). METHODOLOGY: The CES was translated into German via a forward-backward translation process. For validation, 79 patients with COM undergoing middle ear surgery were prospectively included. HRQoL was determined preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using the CES and the COMOT-15. Pure tone audiometry was also performed at both measurement time points. In the control examination, an additional retrospective assessment of the preoperative situation was additionally performed using the CES and the COMOT-15 to assess the response shift. The determined psychometric characteristics were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discrimination validity, agreement validity, responsiveness, and response shift for both measurement instruments. Convergent validity of both measurement instruments was assessed using linear regression.
resultsOn the basis of the CES, patients with COM could be reliably distinguished from patients with healthy ears. The CES showed satisfactory reliability with high internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.65-0.85) and high retest reliability (r > 0.8). The global assessment of HRQoL impairment correlated very well with the scores of the CES (r = 0.51). In addition, it showed a high sensitivity to change (standardized response mean -0.86). Compared to the COMOT-15, it showed a lower response shift (effect size -0.17 vs. 0.44). Both measurement instruments correlated only slightly with air conduction hearing threshold (r = 0.29 and r = 0.24, respectively). The concordant validity of both measurement instruments was high (r = 0.68).
conclusionThe German version of the CES shows satisfactory psychometric characteristics, so that its use can be recommended. The CES focuses on the influence of ear symptoms on HRQoL, whereas the COMOT-15 also includes functional and psychological aspects. Due to only minor response shift effects, the CES is particularly suitable for studies with multiple repeat measurements.
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.