Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of The Cancer Dyspnoea Scale - CDS into Brazilian Portuguese.
Jaqueline Drigo da Fonseca, Renata Mendonça de Barros, Keiko Tanaka and 2 others
PMID 41172536WHAT IT FOUND
A Brazilian Portuguese version of the Cancer Dyspnoea Scale is now available.
Forty head and neck cancer patients completed it without difficulty, and no one needed the "not applicable" option. The wording was adjusted after patients found "very much" confusing.
Key findings
01The translated scale was feasible and practical for clinical use, with all 40 participants answering every item and none selecting the added "not applicable" option.
02Expert consensus led to changing the highest response option from "very much" to "a lot" after pre-testing showed patients associated the original wording with a negative context of "excess".
03Response patterns for most items showed a significant difference from chance, but item 10 regarding airway narrowing did not, likely due to the varied tracheostomy statuses of the group.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a pre-test for cross-cultural adaptation, not a full psychometric validation study; no confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The sample was small (40 participants) and restricted to head and neck cancer patients, so results may not generalize to other cancer types. The study did not assess test-retest reliability or internal consistency.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the FMABC University Center.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this as a fully validated psychometric instrument. The study reports on translation, cultural adaptation, and feasibility, but it did not perform confirmatory factor analysis or assess reliability metrics like internal consistency or test-retest stability.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →