Cross-cultural adaptation of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire.Validation study of the Spanish version

Ovejero, Angel Manuel Hidalgo; Garcia, Mark; Fraile, Belen; Mata, Sunita; Ma, Tejedor Alonso; Sebastián, P. Mateo

doi:10.23938/assn.0052

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 27 This finding is similar to what was found in the original study by Stucki et al 4 where Cronbach’s alpha for the Neuroischemic subdomain was .63. This is in contrast to the Spanish translation performed by Hidalgo et al, 13 which showed good internal consistency for the Neuroischemic subdomain with Cronbach’s alpha of .796. Since there are only a handful of items that pertain to the different subdomains, any missing values will lead to the inability to separate the symptom severity scale into subdomains for unidimensional scores.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 93%

“…Since its introduction, the ZCQ has become one of the primary outcome measures to report on treatment results in patients with LSS. 5 The ZCQ has been translated and validated into several languages 6 - 14 and has shown to be a reliable and valid disease-specific questionnaire for patients with LSS. There have been 9 language translations, with over 120 articles published using the ZCQ.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Bouknaitir

Carreon

Brorson

et al. 2020

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Validation study. Objectives: To translate and validate the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) into a Danish version of the disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which assesses symptom severity, physical function, and satisfaction after surgery. Method: Translation into a Danish version of the original questionnaire by back- and forward-translating the questionnaire and finally transforming a prefinal test version into a final and cross-cultural adapted version. Validation was performed as a cohort study assessing floor-ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, criterion validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness to change. Results: Fifty-three patients were consecutively included in the study, 53 healthy controls were matched. Floor effect was seen in the postoperative data. Internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was good to excellent. Substantial test-retest reproducibility was found using Cohen’s weighted kappa. The Danish ZCQ showed moderate to strong association with similar domains of Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form 36, Euro QoL 5D, visual analogue scale–leg and back. The questionnaire showed significant responsiveness to change and a significant discriminant validity between LSS patients and healthy controls. Conclusion: This study shows the Danish translation of the original ZCQ to be well understood by Danish patients. The Danish version is furthermore a reliable and valid questionnaire, which is responsive to change.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Bouknaitir

Carreon

Brorson

et al. 2020

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ISPOR guidelines were developed to reduce the heterogeneity of methods. These guidelines have been used extensively to translate and adapt health questionnaires in Brazil [29][30][31][32] and across the world 33,34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation and cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and reliability assessment

Barim

McLellan

Ribeiro

et al. 2020

Rev. bras. epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT: Introduction: The Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) is a tool that was initially developed to predict the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. This tool is simple, quick to apply, non-invasive, and low-cost. The aims of this study were to perform a translation and cultural adaptation of the original version of FINDRISC into Brazilian Portuguese and to assess test-retest reliability. Methodology: This work was done following the ISPOR Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures. Once the final Brazilian Portuguese version (FINDRISC-Br) was developed, the reliability assessment was performed using a non-random sample of 83 individuals attending a primary care health center. Each participant was interviewed by trained registered dieticians on two occasions with a mean interval of 14 days. The reliability assessment was performed by analyzing the level of agreement between the test-retest responses of FINDRISC-Br using Cohen’s kappa coefficient and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The steps of ISPOR guidelines were consecutively followed without major problems. Regarding the reliability assessment, the questionnaire as a whole presented adequate reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.82, 95%CI 0.72 - 0.92 and ICC = 0.94, 95%CI 0.91 - 0.96). Conclusion: FINDRISC was translated into Brazilian Portuguese and culturally adapted following standard procedures. FINDRISC-Br has thus become available for use and has potential as a screening tool in different Brazilian settings and applications.

show abstract

A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: a design-agnostic standardized effect meta-analysis of 48 randomized, prospective, and retrospective studies on clinical outcomes with spinal endoscopic and interspinous process spacer (iPs) surgery.Objective: the study aimed to provide reference set of oswestry disability index (odi) and visual analog scale (vas) effect size data for back and leg pain following endoscopic and iPs decompression for lumbar herniated disc, foraminal, or lateral recess spinal stenosis.Background: mechanical low back pain following endoscopic transforaminal decompression may be more reliably reduced by simultaneous posterior column stabilization with iPs.Methods: a systematic search of the Pubmed, embase, web of science, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled trials from 1 January 2000 to 2 april 2020, identified 880 eligible endoscopy and 362 iPs studies varying in design and metrics. the authors compared calculated standardized effect sizes (Cohen's d) for extracted odi, vas-back, and vas-leg data.Results: the pooled standardized effect size combining the odi, vas-back, and vas-leg data for the total sample of 19862 data sets from the 30 endoscopy and 18 iPs was 0.877 (95% Ci = 0.857-0.898). when stratified by surgery, the combined effect sizes were 0.877 (95% Ci = 0.849-0.905) for endoscopic decompression and 0.863 (95% Ci = 0.796-0.930; P = 0.056) for iPs implantation. the odi effect sizes calculated on 6462 samples with directly visualized endoscopic decompression were 0.917 (95% Ci = 0.891-0.943) versus 0.798 (95% Ci = 0.713-0.883; P < 0.001) with indirect iPs decompression (P < 0.001). the vas-back effect sizes calculated on 3672 samples were 0.661 (95% Ci = 0.585-0.738) for endoscopy and 0.784 (95% Ci: 0.644-0.923; P = 0.187) for iPs. the vas-leg effect sizes calculated on 7890 samples were 0.885 (95% Ci = 0.852-0.917) for endoscopic decompression and 0.851 (95% Ci = 0.767-0.935; P = 0.427).Conclusion: Lumbar iPs implantation produces larger reduction in low back pain than spinal endoscopy. on the basis of this meta-analysis, the combination of lumbar transforaminal endoscopy with simultaneous iPs has merits and should be formally investigated in higher grade clinical studies.Clinical Relevance: meta-analysis on the added clinical benefit of combining lumbar endoscopic decompression with an interspinous process spacer.

show abstract

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire.Validation study of the Spanish version

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Translation and cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and reliability assessment

A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About