ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2024
Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the LYMPH-ICF Instrument for Lymphedema into Portuguese/Brazil.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to cross-culturally adapt the Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire Lymphoedema (LYMPH-ICF) instrument into Brazilian Portuguese and conduct a pilot application (n = 10), without psychometric pretensions.
methodMethodological research was conducted, following the steps of translation, synthesis, back-translation, and evaluation by the expert committee. Two translators, two back-translators, and twelve professionals participated in the expert committee. A pretest was carried out with 10 patients with secondary lymphedema due to breast cancer. The degree of agreement was determined by the content validity coefficient.
resultsIt was necessary to modify 8 out of the 29 questions comprising the questionnaire, which exhibited idiomatic disagreement. However, despite these changes, there were no indications of impairments, as content reliability was achieved through a validity coefficient of 0.90. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: The instrument was successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted for Brazil with a high level of agreement.
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.