ArticleActas urologicas espanolas2025
Initial linguistic and cultural validation of the satisfaction survey for inflatable penile implant (SSIPI) in Spanish.
Article in Actas urologicas espanolas, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arabic translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of the satisfaction survey for inflatable penile implant: The SSIPI-AR.Arab journal of urology · 2026Article
- Preliminary psychometric linguistic validation of the satisfaction survey for inflatable penile implant in Spanish.Sexual medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) is useful tool to assess patient outcomes after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. However, this survey is not validated in Spanish. This work aims to report the initial steps carried out for the linguistic validation of the SSIPI translation into Spanish.
methodThe linguistic validation process had the following steps: (i) SSIPI forward translation, (ii) reconciliation, (iii) back translation, (iv) harmonization, review, and correction of the translation, and (v) cognitive interviewing and testing the new translated version. Urologists from Spain, South America, and the United States participated in these steps. The last step was performed in 3 centers: (i) Medellín, Colombia; (ii) Florida, United States; and (iii) Madrid, Spain.
results19 Spanish-speaking patients tested the initial translated version of SSIPI. Most patients found the translated SSIPI questionnaire easy to understand; however, of the 16 questions, patients most frequently commented that questions 3, 5, and 7 should be modified. The median number of observations or comments per question was 1 (1, 3). Based on these suggestions, the research group adapted the questionnaire to obtain the final version in Spanish.
conclusionThis study evaluates the initial steps for the translation and linguistic validation of the SSIPI questionnaire into Spanish. The results indicate a remarkable level of readability and comprehension, while some challenges were observed in certain questions. This work demonstrates that a standardized and protocolized process is needed to translate and validate surveys into Spanish.
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.