ArticleCureus2024
Polish Translation and Linguistic Validation of the SCAR-Q.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are gaining considerable popularity as tools to assess the effectiveness of the treatment in plastic surgery, being a complement to surgical outcomes. The SCAR-Q questionnaire has been recently developed for patients with surgical, traumatic, and burn scars. Aim The study aims to describe the process of translation and linguistic validation of the scar questionnaire (SCAR-Q) for use in Polish patients undergoing scar treatment. Material and methods An official Polish translation and language validation of the SCAR-Q were done in adherence to International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines. The process consisted of four steps: two independent forward translations, a back translation, a review of the back translation, and cognitive participant interviews. Results The field-tested version of the SCAR-Q consisted of 29 items across three scales measuring appearance concerns, symptoms, and the psychosocial impact of the scar. The forward translation was done by two independent translators and revealed specific difficulties in translation to the Polish language (4/29 items). The back translation showed no significant differences compared to the original English version. Cognitive debriefing interviews involved nine Polish patients with postraumatic scars, burn scars, and scars after skin tumor resection. Participants have not reported any major difficulties in understanding the content of the questionnaire. Conclusions The ISPOR provides a straightforward and thorough guideline for the PROMs translation process. The new SCAR-Q is an accessible and efficient PROM that can be implemented in Polish patients to assess the effectiveness of scar treatment.
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.