English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  We conducted a systematic review and appraisal of the cross‐cultural adaptation and cross‐cultural validity of the Health Assessment Questionnaire ( HAQ ) and its derivatives, and of the more recent Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ( PROMIS ) functional status assessment measures ( FSAM s) in rheumatoid arthritis.    Methods  Four electronic medical databases were searched from inception until April 4, 2018 according to the Consensus‐Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments ( COSMIN ) group search strategy. Included studies were evaluated using the  COSMIN  tool for cross‐cultural validity and were scored as excellent, good, fair, or poor.    Results  Of 58 articles identified by our search strategy and 3 by manual search, 39 were included: 29 described the translation, cultural adaptation, or cross‐cultural validity of the  HAQ  disability index, 8 other  HAQ  derivatives, and 2  PROMIS  measures, representing 22 languages. Of the 39 articles reviewed, 3 examined the cross‐cultural validity of translated versions. These studies were rated as follows: 2 as excellent, 3 good, 13 fair, and 21 poor. Two studies examining cross‐cultural validity noted differential item functioning ( DIF ) between Dutch and  US  populations for the  HAQ ‐ II  and  PROMIS  measures, and a third study found  DIF  between Turkish and  UK  populations on the  HAQ , indicating cultural differences in questionnaire response.    Conclusion  This review highlights a paucity of data on the cross‐cultural validity of  FSAM s and the mostly poor‐ or fair‐quality methods by which they were translated and adapted, which needs to be considered when using these measures for multinational clinical trials and for day‐to‐day use in clinical practice.

Systematic Review and Appraisal of the Cross‐Cultural Validity of Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis