ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
Using content validity index methodology for cross-cultural translation of a patient-reported outcome measure for head and neck cancer.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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.
- Care competency scale for family caregivers in home palliative care: Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) in the Community Otomi of the Mezquital Valley, Mexico.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Translations of patient-reported measures may not account for structural and cultural differences in shared languages spoken in multiple countries, such as English, Spanish, Arabic, or Russian. The objective of this research was to create a cross-cultural Spanish translation of the New York University (NYU) Electronic Patient Visit Assessment (ePVA) Methods: Using the Content Validity Index (CVI) methodology, an expert panel of nurses ( Results: The translation was acceptable in cultural relevance (average CVI score = 0.95) and equivalence (average CVI score = 0.84). Cognitive interviews revealed 9 problematic items that differed in words and meaning, primarily addressing pain and swallowing symptoms. These items were refined and included in the final translation of the Spanish ePVA. Conclusion: These study findings underscore the need for survey instrument translations that account for variations in shared languages spoken across countries.
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.