ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Translation and cross-sectional validation of the achalasia patient reported outcomes questionnaire in a Dutch cohort.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Achalasia Patient Reported Outcomes (APRO) questionnaire is developed to assess the frequency and severity of achalasia symptoms in adults with achalasia. The aim of this study was to translate the APRO questionnaire in Dutch, validate the translation and validate the questionnaire in the adult and pediatric achalasia population.
methodsIn this cross-sectional validation study, English-Dutch forward-backward translation was conducted followed by cognitive debriefing. Field testing was performed between April 2024 and January 2025 in three groups: adults with achalasia, children with achalasia and parents of the included children. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and split-half reliability, while validation was evaluated with principal factor analysis and known-group method. Convergent validation was performed by correlating the APRO questionnaire with other validated questionnaires.
resultsCognitive debriefing indicated good understanding of the translated APRO questionnaire by the three groups. In total 111 adults, 30 children (minimum age 10 years) and 27 parents (one of each of the included children) were included for field testing. Internal reliability was high with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 for adults, 0.78 for children and 0.86 for parents, and split-half reliability indicated strong consistency. Principal factor analysis did not reveal any subscales. The APRO questionnaire was able to distinguish between active disease (Eckard > 3) and remission (Eckardt ≤ 3) and correlated strong with other questionnaires including Eckardt score, achalasia-specific quality of life and reflux questionnaires.
conclusionsThe APRO questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate achalasia symptoms in adult and pediatric achalasia population and validated for use in the Netherlands.
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.