ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Principles of good practice for translation of electronic clinical outcome assessments.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. 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.
- Empowering safe medication practices: translation and validation of the Malay inpatient medication-safety involvement scale (M-IMSIS).BMC health services research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile many publications have outlined good practice recommendations for translation and electronic implementation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), they are often treated as independent processes. The scientific literature currently lacks recommended guidelines on the process of concurrent translation, cultural adaptation and electronic implementation of COAs for clinical research. In response to this need, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) sought to identify actionable steps for addressing the scientific and operational intricacies in this concurrent process.
methodsUsing snowball sampling, semi-structured questions were sent to language service providers (LSPs), electronic clinical outcome assessment (eCOA) providers, and developers/copyright holders. The TCA-SIG workgroup, consisting of 13 members, then led the methodological groundwork for the disseminated surveys and established a cohesive set of recommendations.
resultsThe collective feedback that led to the recommendations included a total of 30 experts who responded to the surveys. Most of the respondents worked in companies or represented organizations based in the US and Europe. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations fall into two main categories: namely, operational and scientific. The operational recommendations consist of active involvement from all stakeholders, the communication of clear expectations from the start, and better clarification of timelines of LSPs involved. Examples of scientific recommendations are electronic language feasibility assessment (ELFA), screenshot proofreading, as well as COA-specific developer and copyright holder guidelines for electronic implementation. COA-specific guidelines and instructions for electronic implementation and evaluation were seen to be needed and key recommendations are discussed in detail in this paper.
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.