4.2 Article

Japanese translation, cross-cultural adaption and multicentre validation of the Zurich chronic middle ear inventory (ZCMEI-21-Jap)

期刊

AURIS NASUS LARYNX
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 18-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2018.05.008

关键词

Chronic otitis media; Cholesteatoma; Patient-reported outcome measure; Health-related quality of life; ZCMEI-21; Japanese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In the assessment of chronic otitis media (COM) and its treatment, patient-reported outcomes are becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate the Zurich chronic middle ear inventory (ZCMEI-21) in Japanese in order to provide the first Japanese-language instrument for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in COM. Methods: The ZCMEI-21 was translated into Japanese according to published guidelines. In order to assess validity, the ZCMEI-21-Jap total score was compared to a question directly addressing HRQoL as well as the five-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire, a generic measure of HRQoL. Results: Demographic data and validity were assessed in a total of 91 COM patients. The ZCMEI-21-Jap total and subscale scores were well comparable to those of the original validation study. Cronbach's a of the ZCMEI-21-Jap was 0.85, indicating an excellent internal consistency. The ZCMEI-21-Jap total score showed a strong correlation (r = 0.68, p < 0.0001) to the question directly addressing HRQoL and, as expected, only a moderate correlation to the EQ-5D scores (r = 0.49, p < 0.0001 for descriptive system score and r = 0.44, p < 0.0001 for VAS score). Conclusion: We successfully translated the ZCMEI-21 into Japanese and were able to obtain sufficient information during the validation process for the use of the ZCMEI-21-Jap to quantify HRQoL in patients with COM. With the current study, we aim to take a step forward towards an international standardization of reporting HRQoL in COM. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据