Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40658278›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Principles of good practice for concept definition in the context of translation and linguistic validation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs).

Benjamin Arnold, Dana Weiss, Emily Parks-Vernizzi, Barbara Brandt, Ana Popielnicki, Beatrice Tedeschi, Clayon Hamilton, Mark Wade, John Chaplin, Holger Muehlan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Benjamin ArnoldFACITtrans, 151 Bay Cove Drive, Ponte Vedra, FL, 32082, USA. barnold@facit.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7591-2539
Dana WeissFormerly of Mapi Research Trust, Lyon, France.
Emily Parks-VernizziFACITtrans, 151 Bay Cove Drive, Ponte Vedra, FL, 32082, USA.
Barbara BrandtCritical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Ana PopielnickiGSK, Collegeville, PA, USA.
Beatrice TedeschiLionbridge, Didcot, England.
Clayon HamiltonFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Burnaby, Canada.
Mark WadeTransPerfect New York, New York, USA.
John ChaplinSahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Holger MuehlanHealth & Medical University, Erfurt, Germany.
Jussi P RepoTampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Sonya EremencoCritical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranslation teams conducting translation and cultural adaptation find it paramount to properly describe concepts of items within clinical outcome assessments (COAs). To minimize potential threats to linguistic/conceptual equivalence, these teams must understand the concepts a COA intends to measure. This research provides recommendations for the process of developing concept definitions in general, as well as specific recommendations on who should be involved in the process and what a concept definition document should contain.

methodsThe Concept Definition Working Group of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) carried out a literature review and a survey of 20 professionals working in the area of translation and linguistic validation of COAs. The Working Group based recommendations on a combination of survey results and consensus building via online meetings.

resultsTranslation teams should develop concept definitions during the preparation phase of the translation process, assuming they do not already exist, and include COA developers and project managers with experience in linguistic validation and conceptual analysis of COAs. The Working Group recommends that concept definitions consist of information related to the therapeutic area being studied, information related to the COA development process, definitions of concepts and domains, as well as elaboration of colloquialisms and acceptable/unacceptable translation alternatives. We recommend centralized distribution of concept definitions.

conclusionsConcept definitions guide stakeholders and ensure all parties align on the intended meaning of items being translated. While experts have made recommendations for best practices around translation and linguistic validation methodology, they have not clearly delineated the process of defining concepts. The Concept Definition Working Group of the ISOQOL TCA-SIG has therefore developed a set of recommendations for the process of defining concepts. With these recommendations the Working Group intends to standardize the development of concept definitions with the goal of enhancing conceptual equivalence across translations to support data pooling and provide confidence that clinical trial data are comparable, interpretable, and can be relied upon in evaluating clinical benefit of treatments.

Indexed as

LinguisticsOutcome Assessment, Health CareTranslatingTranslationsConsensusHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesBest practiceClinical outcome assessmentConcept definitionConcept elaborationCultural adaptationItem definitionLinguistic validationPatient-reported outcomeTranslation

Identifiers

PMID40658278
PMCPMC12259492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.