“…It is considered reckless to apply an instrument that has low accuracy and sensitivity, such as the 57.0% (95% CI: 45.8-67.6%) and 45.3% (95% CI: 32.8-58.2%), respectively, determined by Lapas et al 1 for the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the SACS, because, in the analyses performed, the number of patients who completed the SACS was small (limited demographic data) and because the text does not mention the need to train professionals to apply the important instrument proposed (with consequent understanding of the semantics, culture, technology, concepts, standards, and content of the instrument, as mentioned above).…”