The culturally adapted Italian version of the Barthel Index (IcaBI): assessment of structural validity, inter-rater reliability and responsiveness to clinically relevant improvements in patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation centers
“…association in the last few years has dealt with several systematic reviews and the validation of many outcome measures in Italy. [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] Summary of the quality of the evidence…”
Objective: To provide clinicians and researchers information regarding (1) the existing outcome measures to assess the loss of functionality in the activities of daily living (ADLs) of patients with stroke and (2) the presence of these assessment tools in the Italian context. Study Design and Setting: For this Systematic Review Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published up to 4 July 2017. Two authors independently identified eligible studies on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: Of 370 publications identified and screened, 46 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed. The most commonly used tools were: the Frenchay Activities Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Conclusion: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied in depth or adapted to other national contexts in order to develop universal norms and standards.
“…association in the last few years has dealt with several systematic reviews and the validation of many outcome measures in Italy. [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] Summary of the quality of the evidence…”
Objective: To provide clinicians and researchers information regarding (1) the existing outcome measures to assess the loss of functionality in the activities of daily living (ADLs) of patients with stroke and (2) the presence of these assessment tools in the Italian context. Study Design and Setting: For this Systematic Review Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published up to 4 July 2017. Two authors independently identified eligible studies on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: Of 370 publications identified and screened, 46 studies fell within the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed. The most commonly used tools were: the Frenchay Activities Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Conclusion: This review has emphasized the need for agreement among researchers as to which tool must be studied in depth or adapted to other national contexts in order to develop universal norms and standards.
“…This study was conducted by a research group composed by medical doctors and rehabilitation professionals from [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. We contacted the developers of the PDQ-39 to obtain permission to use the scale.…”
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) to the Italian culture was performed by Oxford University Innovation in 2008, but this version has never been validated. Therefore, we performed the process of validation of the Italian version of the PDQ-39 (PDQ-39-IT) following the "Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments" checklist. The translated PDQ-39-IT was tested with 104 patients diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) who were recruited between June and October 2017. The mean age of the participants was 65.7 ± 10.2 years, and the mean duration of symptoms was 7.4 ± 5.3 years. The internal consistency of the PDQ-39-IT was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and ranged from 0.69 to 0.92. In an assessment of test-retest reliability in 35 of the 104 patients, the infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 for the various subitems of the PDQ-39-IT (all p < 0.01). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for the validity of the PDQ-39-IT and the Italian version of the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) was - 0.50 (p < 0.01). The results show that the PDQ-39-IT is a reliable and valid tool to assess the impact of PD on functioning and well-being. Thus, the PDQ-39-IT can be used in clinical and research practice to assess this construct and to evaluate the overall effect of different treatments in Italian PD patients.
“…association in the last few years has dealt with several systematic reviews and the validation of many outcome measures in Italy. [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] The data available in the literature before February 2017 allowed for the identification of 33 different fall risk assessment tools, but it is still not possible to identify one that is usable at any time and in any setting. Even with a setting stratification, it was not possible to reach definitive recommendations.…”
Aims: to find and describe, through a systematic review, validated assessment tool that evaluate the fall risk in older adults. Methods: MEDLINE, PEDro, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were consulted and no restrictions were applied to the year or country of publication but the searches were limited to studies published in English. Two authors independently identified eligible studies on the basis of inclusion criteria and extracted data. Results: Fifty-five eligible studies were identified, out of which 33 valued risk assessment tools emerged. The tools used the most were the Falls Efficacy Scale International and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale with 15 and 6 studies respectively. Conclusions: The large number of tools reflects a strong tendency to create new instruments, with only a few of them recommended. To reach a gold standard, it would be good to try to validate the existing scales in more countries instead of creating new ones.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.