Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40065803›Full record

ReviewMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2024

Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire in different languages.

Mohammed Aljarousha, Waleed M Alghamdi, Sara Attaallah, Mohammed Abdelfatah Alhoot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohammed AljaroushaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Management and Science University, Malaysia.
Waleed M AlghamdiDepartment of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Sara AttaallahDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Management and Science University, Malaysia.
Mohammed Abdelfatah AlhootSchool of Graduate Studies (SGS), Management & Science University (MSU), Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire was first introduced and developed in 1997 by the Outcomes Research Group, and was adopted by Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, Goleta, CA). While several tools are available for evaluating dry eye syndrome (DES), the OSDI questionnaire is known to have high reliability and validity. Additionally, although more complex questionnaires are available, the goal of the OSDI is to ensure a rapid diagnosis of ocular surface disease. The OSDI consists of a 12-item questionnaire designed to assess the visual disability caused by DES. The OSDI score can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater disability. This language-inclusive mini-review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of previous studies that translated the OSDI into various languages and validated the translated versions. Methods: OSDI validation studies were identified through a PubMed / MEDLINE and Google Scholar search spanning the 27 years since the establishment of the OSDI, using the broad term "Ocular Surface Disease Index-12 questions" and keywords that is "ocular surface disease index-12," "translation and validation," "transcultural validation," "development," "cross-cultural adaptation," and "reliability and validity." We included original studies that validated the translated version of the OSDI in various languages, presenting the key findings with a focus on reliability and repeatability outcomes. Results: Thirteen full-text articles were thoroughly reviewed, including those identified through targeted keyword searches and the reference lists of these studies. The papers examined the translation of the English version of the OSDI-12 questionnaire into nine languages: Italian, Arabic, Chinese, Chilean Spanish, Japanese, Filipino, Farsi, Bahasa Melayu, and Brazilian Portuguese. Key details regarding the development, translation, and validation phases were summarized. Most of the included studies adhered to standard guidelines throughout the translation process to create a final version of the OSDI questionnaire. This was followed by clinical validation of the final translated version. The majority of the translated versions were assessed for internal consistency, reliability, test-retest repeatability, and discriminant validity. Conclusions: The original English version of the OSDI was translated into validated versions to achieve a final version in nine different languages. The majority of the translated versions demonstrated high reproducibility and reliability. The different language versions of the questionnaire removed language barriers in informing the eye-care community, evaluating DES, and assisting physicians in advising and managing their patients more suitably. Therefore, the validated versions of OSDI can be used as tools for clinical practice and DES research. Validating the OSDI questionnaire in various languages is essential to eliminate the language barrier in the assessment of dry eye disease.

Indexed as

cronbach’s alphadry eye diseasequestionnairetranslationsvalidity and reliability

Identifiers

PMID40065803
PMCPMC11890261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.