ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Victoria Respiratory Congestion Scale into Spanish.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeath rattles are a frequent clinical sign in patients in an end-of-life situation, despite the lack of consensus on how to address them. The Victoria Respiratory Congestion Scale (VRCS) is an internationally utilized scale, but it has yet to be translated to Spanish. The aim of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the VRCS into Spanish and to assess selected psychometric properties, namely criterion validity and inter-rater reliability, in patients at the end-of-life.
methodsA systematic translation and cross‑cultural adaptation methodology was applied to ensure semantic, conceptual, and cultural equivalence of the instrument for Spanish‑speaking patients at the end-of-life. A cross-sectional study was conducted between May and September 2024 in home-care patients and patients in the palliative care unit at Hestia Balaguer Hospital and Hospital de la Ribera, to assess the criterion validity and inter-rater reliability of the Spanish version of the VRCS. Criterion validity was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the sound level measurements obtained using a smartphone sound level meter app and the VRCS scores using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using weighted Cohen's kappa by comparing the VRCS scores independently assigned by two observers.
resultsThe first outcome of the study was the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Spanish VRCS (Sp-VRCS). The validity and reliability were assessed in a sample of 47 patients aged between 54 and 98 years old, with 82.98% being men. In addition, 76.60% of them had a primary diagnosis of cancer. Spearman's correlation coefficients were ρ = 0.758 (maximum dB), ρ = 0.649 (mean dB), and ρ = 0.569 (minimum dB), indicating moderate to acceptable correlations. All correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.01, two-tailed). The inter-rater reliability analysis revealed that the weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient was 1.00, indicating a perfect inter-rater agreement in this sample.
conclusionsThe Sp‑VRCS demonstrated good criterion validity and high inter-rater reliability agreement. The present study provides preliminary psychometric evidence for the Spanish version of the VRCS. The results support its use as a feasible and clinically useful scale for assessing respiratory congestion in palliative care patients at the end-of-life. Further multicentre validation studies addressing additional psychometric properties are recommended before broader implementation.
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.