ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory Disease: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Semantic Validity of the Brazilian Version for Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most instruments available to screen for anxiety in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not disease specific. Therefore, the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory Disease (AIR) was developed to measure anxiety for this patient group; however, it requires cross-cultural adaptation for use in non-English speaking countries. Purpose: To carry out cross-cultural adaptation of the AIR scale for Brazilian patients with COPD and to analyze its semantic validity. Patients and Methods: This methodological study followed six stages: 1) Initial translation by two independent translators fluent in English; 2) Synthesis of translations; 3) Back translation by two English first language translators; 4) Expert committee review (eight healthcare professionals, a methodologist, the translators, and back-translators); 5) Pre-final version evaluation with 30 patients with COPD through a cognitive interview; and 6) Submission of documents. Semantic validity was analyzed by agreement rate and content validity index (CVI) for the committee equivalence assessments. Results: 1) Initial translation: the two translated versions presented eight divergences; 2) Synthesis of translations: the differences were discussed to reach consensus; 3) Back-translation: there were no important inconsistencies; 4) Expert Committee: the experts proposed eight and the instrument developer proposed three changes, which were analyzed and voted on, resulting in the pre-final version; 5) Evaluation of the pre-final version: data collection allowed for other changes and the formulation of instructions by applying the adapted instrument in an interview format. Patients rated the questions as clear or very clear; 6) The expert committee and the developer approved the final documents. The agreement rate and CVI were ≥ 0.80 for all items of the scale final version. Conclusion: The process of cross-cultural adaptation followed all necessary stages and the semantic validity results were adequate, providing the Brazilian version of the AIR to assess anxiety symptoms in patients with COPD.
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.