ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Arabic version of the Ear Outcome Survey-16 (EOS-16).
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Ear Outcome Survey-16 (EOS-16) has been validated according to the health-related quality of life (HRQol) survey guidelines. It has important compatible aspects in evaluating patients with chronic otitis media (COM) suitable for consultation. This study aimed to develop and standardize the Arabic version of the EOS-16 to be used by clinicians in the Arab world while maintaining the conceptual equivalence. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in Damascus between July 2023 and November 2023 to develop an Arabic version of the EOS-16. The translation was produced according to the cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Both experts' and participants' opinions as regards face validity were obtained in this study. Internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach alpha coefficient. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation. Results: A total of 81 patients enrolled in the study, with an average age of 34.75 years and a standard deviation of 11.84 years with a sex ratio of 0.62 for females. All had inactive mucosal COM (dry perforation). The overall score of the EOS-16 survey was 31.72 with a standard deviation of 13.42 suggesting bothering and influencing symptoms in COM patient's daily life. Excellent internal consistency was noted (Cronbach Conclusion: The Arabic version of the EOS-16 is a simple, clear, reliable, reproducible, and valid HRQoL survey. It is a useful and important instrument that helps physicians in making decisions regarding the patient's treatment and follow-up.
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.