Journals / Üroonkoloji Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3

Turkish Linguistic Validation of the Geriatric 8 Screening Tool

Pages
133–137
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the G8 screening tool was established in this study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the Turkish linguistic validation of the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Professional medical translators independently performed the translation and backtranslation of the original English G8 questionnaire.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The Turkish version of the G8 screening tool was established in this study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To evaluate the Turkish linguistic validation of the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool. Materials and Methods: Professional medical translators independently performed the translation and backtranslation of the original English G8 questionnaire. Patients aged 70 years or older were included in the study. The final Turkish version of the G8 screening tool was administered to all patients, and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The G8 screening tool was administered once more to the patients two weeks after the first administration to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient test was used to evaluate the test-retest results. The construct validity of the scale was examined using the exploratory factor analysis. Results: One hundred and nineteen patients were included in the study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.72, which indicated that the screening tool was internally consistent. According to the test-retest analysis, a strong correlation was noted between the test and retest results. When the answers to the same question in the test and retest were compared, they were similar, and this result was consistent with the correlation results. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the G8 screening tool was established in this study.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞEN, V., YILDIZ, H. A., BOZKURT, O., ELLİDOKUZ, H., MUNGAN, U. (2021). Turkish Linguistic Validation of the Geriatric 8 Screening Tool. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3, 133–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/401899

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Wasmann KATGM, Klaver CEL, van der Bilt JDW, et al. Subclassification of Multivisceral Resections for T4b Colon Cancer with Relevance for Postoperative Complications and Oncological Risks. J Gastrointest Surg 2020;24:2113-2120
  2. Courtney D, McDermott F, Heeney A, Winter DC. Clinical review: surgical management of locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2014;399:33-40
  3. Mukai T, Nagasaki T, Akiyoshi T, et al. Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer: a single-center analysis of short- and long-term outcomes. Surg Today 2020;50:1024-1031
  4. Nadiradze G, Yurttas C, Königsrainer A, Horvath P. Significance of multivisceral resections in oncologic surgery: A systematic review of the literature. World J Meta-Anal 2019;7:269-289
  5. Gao F, Cao YF, Chen LS, et al. Outcome of surgical management of the bladder in advanced colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007;22:21-24
  6. Tan GHC, Shannon NB, Chia CS, et al. The impact of urological resection and reconstruction on patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Asian J Urol 2018;5:194-198
  7. Honoré C, Souadka A, Goéré D, et al. HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis: does an associated urologic procedure increase morbidity? Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:104-109
  8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213
  9. Landmann RG, Weiser MR. Surgical management of locally advanced and locally recurrent colon cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2005;18:182-189
  10. Larkin JO, O’Connell PR. Multivisceral resection for T4 or recurrent colorectal cancer. Dig Dis 2012;30(Suppl 2):96-101
  11. Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneum as the first-line of defense in carcinomatosis. J Surg Oncol 2007;95:93-96
  12. Ferenschild FT, Vermaas M, Verhoef C, et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent malignancies. World J Surg 2009;33:1502-1508
  13. Chen YG, Liu YL, Jiang SX, Wang XS. Adhesion pattern and prognosis studies of T4N0M0 colorectal cancer following en bloc multivisceral resection: evaluation of T4 subclassification. Cell Biochem Biophys 2011;59:1-6
  14. Bartoş A, Bartoş D, Dunca F, et al. Multi-organ resections for colorectal cancer: analysis of potential factors with role in the occurrence of postoperative complications and deaths. Chirurgia 2012;107:476-482