ArticleAdvances in orthopedics2024
Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Patient's Knee Implant Performance (PKIP) into Japanese.
Article in Advances in orthopedics, 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The patient's knee implant performance (PKIP) is a patient-reported outcome measure, developed in the USA in English that evaluates knee functional performance before and after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PKIP assesses the level of satisfaction, confidence, and stability, while performing various activities, as well as the need for changing ways of doing activities. It comprises 24 items. The objective of this study was to present the methodology of the linguistic validation of the PKIP. Methods: The Japanese version of the PKIP was developed using a standard linguistic validation (LV) process. The LV involved the following steps: (1) conceptual analysis of the original version; (2) translation into Japanese using a dual forward/backward translation process; (3) review by an orthopaedics surgeon; (4) test on five respondents; and (5) proofreading. Results: The translation itself did not reveal major translatability issues, either cultural, semantic, or syntactic. Most of the activities listed (e.g., going up stairs, getting in/out of a car, and walking up a hill/ramp/incline) were easily translated. Only one activity was culturally sensitive and raised some discussion, i.e., "sitting down on a toilet," since the style of Japanese toilets is different from the western style. Overall, the respondents well understood the questionnaire. However, the expression "how your knee is working with your body" used in the opening sentence was an issue for both the clinician and the respondents. A compromise was found by using a Japanese equivalent of "how your knee functions with your legs." Conclusion: The rigorous translation process, which involved the collaboration of a minimum of thirteen people (sponsor, four translators, two coordinators (one in Japan and one in Europe), one clinician, and five respondents) enabled the production of a Japanese version of the PKIP conceptually equivalent to the USA English original.
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.