ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2025
The Bristol Breastfeeding Assessment Tool (BBAT): Α systematic review of the psychometric properties of the translated versions.
Review in European journal of midwifery, 2025. 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
introductionThe Bristol Breastfeeding Assessment Tool (BBAT) has gained the interest of healthcare professionals involved in breastfeeding. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the psychometrics of the translated versions of the BBAT.
methodsThe databases PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and DOAJ were used to conduct a search for articles published between 2015 and 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for the conduct and reporting of the review, and the COSMIN checklist was utilized to evaluate the psychometrics of the studies that were retrieved.
resultsOf the 117 records initially identified, four studies were included. The analysis of these studies revealed that the scale is available in at least four different languages. The methodological quality of the structural validity reported by three studies was satisfactory. Only two studies provided information on test-retest reliability, while the majority of the studies demonstrated very good quality in terms of internal consistency. All studies examined the construct validity of the BBAT, and the methodological quality produced different outcomes.
conclusionsThe methodological quality of the psychometrics of the translated versions of the BBAT provided mixed results. The continuation of the validation of the scale in more languages is recommended.
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.