ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2023
Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the problem areas in diabetes-pediatric version (PAID-Peds) survey.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Diabetes Distress Screening in a Pediatric Endocrinology Clinic Using a Digital Health Platform: Quantitative Secondary Data Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Spanish Validation of the Problem Area in Diabetes-Pediatric Version Survey and Its Weak Association with Metabolic Control Parameters in Pediatric Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic control and psychological management of paediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) can be challenging over time. Development of an instrument to assess the youth-reported burden could aid in preventing T1DM-associated diseases.
methodsThe aim of this study was to translate and validate the Spanish version of the Problem Area in Diabetes Survey-Pediatric version (PAID-Peds). A multicentre, cross-sectional translation and linguistic validation study was performed on a sample of 30 participants aged 8-17 years with a minimum 1-year history of T1DM diagnosed at the Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza (Aragon, Spain), Ramón y Cajal University Clinical Hospital in Madrid (Spain), and Sant Joan de Déu Hospital in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). The qualitative validation consisted of translation into Spanish and back-translation into English of the Paid-Peds survey and subsequent administration to the sample population. Data were gathered on parameters related to sociodemographic characteristics and metabolic control. Validity, feasibility, and test-retest reliability were evaluated. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, test-retest reliability by means of interclass correlation, and paired samples using the Wilcoxon W-test. The study was approved by the ethics and research committees at each participating centre.
resultsThe study assessed 30 children (46.7% female) with an average age of 13.33 ± 2.98 years; mean age at onset was 5.70 ± 3.62 years, and the mean disease duration was 7.63 ± 4.36 years. The mean score on the PAID-Peds survey was 42.88 ± 17.85. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.90. Test-retest reliability measured by interclass correlation coefficient was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.63-0.90). No significant differences in total scores were found between test and retest (Wilcoxon W-test: 289; p = 0.051).
conclusionsThe Spanish version of the PAID-Peds survey is a feasible, valid, and reliable instrument to assess the youth-perceived burden of T1DM.
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.