SynthesisPloS one2025
Assessment of cross-cultural adaptations and patient-reported outcome measures relevant to shoulder disorders in Turkish: A systematic review using the COSMIN methodology.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are many shoulder assessment outcome measures in the literature that have been studied for validity and reliability. However, there is no study examining the Turkish-adapted patient outcome measures (PROMs) on the shoulder according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. In addition, there is a small number of studies that carry out this examination on the shoulder internationally. Determining the most appropriate questionnaires for clinical use will also be an important guide in patient evaluation by filling the gap in both literature and clinical aspects.
objectiveOur aim in this study is to identify the valid and reliable Turkish scales used to evaluate shoulder pain and disability, to reveal how compatible these scales are with the aspects of study quality and psychometric quality according to COSMIN criteria list.
methodsA systematic search was performed in the following electronic databases: MED-LINE, Web of Science (WOS), EMBASE, SCOPUS, and ULAKBIM were searched from inception to September 2024.
resultsA total of 2890 articles were found in the databases. Four articles were included additionally without a search. Then, after eliminating the duplicates, 2231 articles were included based on the title and abstract search. 63 articles were included in full-text review. After the full-text review, according to our criteria, 29 articles were included in the systematic review. According to the assessment by the COSMIN checklist, 28 articles received the final classification of "inadequate". Only 1 article (UCLA-Tr) received the final classification of "adequate".
conclusionThere is a wide range of Turkish PROMs available for the shoulder, with only one fully meeting COSMIN methodology criteria. However, this does not imply that other PROMs lack clinical utility. Future studies should focus on refining PROMs by incorporating MCID and PASS scores and prioritizing their responsiveness to enhance their clinical relevance. Additionally, variations in PROM performance across different patient populations highlight the need for context-specific evaluations to ensure their applicability in diverse clinical settings.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42022298425.
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.