ArticleCancers2024
Dutch Translation of the Yost Self-Report Lower Extremity Lymphedema Screening Questionnaire in Women.
Article in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundValidated questionnaires of self-reported LEL are important in the assessment and diagnosis of LEL. The aim of this study was to validate and translate a Dutch version of the screening questionnaire, the LELSQ developed and validated by Yost et al. Methods: We tested the questionnaire on a group of healthy women and a group of patients diagnosed with LEL. The translation was carried out using the forward and backward method from English to Dutch. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: SPSS (IBM corp, Armonk, New York, NY, USA) version 28.0.1.0 (001) was used for statistical analysis in the process of validation. The internal consistency was assessed by determining Cronbach's alpha. The reliability was tested by test-retest reliability. The validity was determined by ROC analysis, and content and face validity were evaluated.
resultsThe internal consistency score in both groups had a strong value (0.83 to 0.90). The test-retest reliability was also strong in both groups. Face and content validity showed the LELSQ is an easy, understandable questionnaire that is not too time-consuming in the early detection of LEL. The ROC analysis showed an AUC value of 0.93, indicating strong validity.
conclusionsThe validated Dutch translation showed high values for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity, which allows us to implement the questionnaire in the early detection of LEL after gynecological cancer 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.