Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the SOSG-OQ 2.0 Questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese^[*]

Abstract

Objective: To perform the cross-cultural adaptation and translation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Spine Oncology Study Group – Outcomes Questionnaire 2.0 (SOSG-OQ 2.0) to enable its application to Brazilian patients and to allow Brazilian researchers to use a questionnaire that is on trend in the scientific literature.

Materials and Methods: The present is a basic, non-randomized, non-comparative study. The translation followed the proposal by Reichenheime and Moraes, mainly for the semantic equivalence and measurement equivalence sessions, as well as the recommendations by Coster and Mancini mainly in the translation stage. The stages were as follows: first – translation into Brazilian Portuguese; second – back-translation; third – semantic comparison; fourth – validation of the final construct.

Results: The translations of the SOSG-OQ 2.0 made by three translators presented a high degree of similarity for most questions. The translators kept all question titles and subtitles, as well as their internal and external orders. Two sworn translators, with native proficiency in English, performed the back-translation of the amalgamated text. Both back-translations were quite similar, and any differences were solved through consensus between the main author and the sworn translators, and the translated text was considered the final version.

Conclusion: The present study shows a translated version of the SOSG-OQ 2.0 with semantic validity with the original version published in English. As such, researchers can apply the questionnaire to the Brazilian population, adding another tool for spine surgeons to improve the monitoring of this complex group of patients.

Keywords

spine/surgery - surveys and questionnaires - neoplasm metastasis - quality of life - translations

^* Work developed at the Instituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Publication History

Received: 26 December 2022

Accepted: 27 February 2023

Article published online:
21 March 2024

• Referências

• 1 Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R. et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380 (9859) 2197-2223
• 2 Wai EK, Finkelstein JA, Tangente RP. et al. Quality of life in surgical treatment of metastatic spine disease. Spine 2003; 28 (05) 508-512
• 3 Boing AF, Vargas SAL, Boing AC. [The burden of neoplasm in Brazil: mortality and hospital morbidity from 2002 to 2004]. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2007; 53 (04) 317-322
• 4 Choi D, Bilsky M, Fehlings M, Fisher C, Gokaslan Z. Spine Oncology-Metastatic Spine Tumors. Neurosurgery 2017; 80 (3S): S131-S137
• 5 Morgen SS, Engelholm SA, Larsen CF, Søgaard R, Dahl B. Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. Orthop Surg 2016; 8 (03) 309-315
• 6 Barzilai O, Fisher CG, Bilsky MH. State of the art treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Neurosurgery 2018; 82 (06) 757-769
• 7 Barzilai O, McLaughlin L, Lis E, Yamada Y, Bilsky MH, Laufer I. Outcome analysis of surgery for symptomatic spinal metastases in long-term cancer survivors. J Neurosurg Spine 2019; 31 (02) 1-6
• 8 Barcena A, Lobato RD, Rivas JJ. et al. Spinal metastatic disease: analysis of factors determining functional prognosis and the choice of treatment. Neurosurgery 1984; 15 (06) 820-827
• 9 Street J, Berven S, Fisher C, Ryken T. Health related quality of life assessment in metastatic disease of the spine: a systematic review. Spine 2009; 34 (22, Suppl) S128-S134
• 10 Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G. et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia 1969; 7 (03) 179-192
• 11 El Masry WS, Tsubo M, Katoh S, El Miligui YHS, Khan A. Validation of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS) motor score. Spine 1996; 21 (05) 614-619
• 12 Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?. PharmacoEconomics 2016; 34 (07) 645-649
• 13 Haraldstad K, Wahl A, Andenæs R. et al; LIVSFORSK network. A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Qual Life Res 2019; 28 (10) 2641-2650
• 14 Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine 2000; 25 (22) 2940-2952 , discussion 2952
• 15 Cook C, Richardson JK, Braga L. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Spine 2006; 31 (14) 1621-1627
• 16 McHorney CA, Ware Jr JE, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32 (01) 40-66
• 17 Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33 (05) 337-343
• 18 Young J, Badgery-Parker T, Dobbins T. et al. Comparison of ECOG/WHO performance status and ASA score as a measure of functional status. J Pain Symptom Manage 2015; 49 (02) 258-264
• 19 Choi D, Morris S, Crockard A. et al. Assessment of quality of life after surgery for spinal metastases: position statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group. World Neurosurg 2013; 80 (06) e175-e179
• 20 Street J, Lenehan B, Berven S, Fisher C. Introducing a new health-related quality of life outcome tool for metastatic disease of the spine: content validation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; on behalf of the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine 2010; 35 (14) 1377-1386
• 21 Janssen SJ, Teunis T, van Dijk E. et al. Validation of the Spine Oncology Study Group-Outcomes Questionnaire to assess quality of life in patients with metastatic spine disease. Spine J 2017; 17 (06) 768-776
• 22 Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45 (5, Suppl 1) S3-S11
• 23 Paulino Pereira NR, Janssen SJ, Raskin KA. et al. Most efficient questionnaires to measure quality of life, physical function, and pain in patients with metastatic spine disease: a cross-sectional prospective survey study. Spine J 2017; 17 (07) 953-961
• 24 Versteeg AL, Sahgal A, Rhines LD. et al; AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor. Psychometric evaluation and adaptation of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Cancer 2018; 124 (08) 1828-1838
• 25 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3186-3191
• 26 Reichenheim ME, Moraes CL. Operacionalização de adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de aferição usados em epidemiologia. Rev Saude Publica 2007; 41 (04) 665-673
• 27 Coster WJ, Mancini MC. Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Rev Ter Ocup Univ Sao Paulo 2015; 26 (01) 50-57
• 28 White AP, Kwon BK, Lindskog DM, Friedlaender GE, Grauer JN. Metastatic disease of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14 (11) 587-598
• 29 Gerszten PC. Spine metastases: from radiotherapy, surgery, to radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 2014; 61 (Suppl. 01) 16-25
• 30 Miller EK, Vila-Casademunt A, Neuman BJ. et al; European Spine Study Group, International Spine Study Group. External validation of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) frailty index (ASD-FI). Eur Spine J 2018; 27 (09) 2331-2338
• 31 Pratali RR, Romerio CFWE, Daher MT. et al. Adaptation of the frailty index for brazilian portuguese in adult spine deformity surgery. Coluna/Columna 2020; 19 (03) 168-171
• 32 Luksanapruksa P, Phikunsri P, Trathitephun W. et al. Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire version 2.0 to assess Quality of Life in Patients with Spinal Metastasis. Spine J 2021; 21 (11) 1920-1924
• 33 Brodano GB, Pesce E, Griffoni C. et al. Adaptation and Validation of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire in Italian Language. Global Spine J 2022;2022(00):21925682221083913
• 34 Yin M, Sun Z, Ding X. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of simplified Chinese version of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ) 2.0 with its assessment in clinical setting. Spine J 2022; 22 (12) 2024-2032
• 35 Richardson MA, Bernstein DN, Kulp A, Mesfin A. Patient Reported Outcomes in Metastatic Spine Disease: Concurrent Validity of PROMIS with the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcome Questionnaire. Spine 2022; 47 (08) 591-596
• 36 Feghali J, Pennington Z, Ehresman J. et al. Predicting postoperative quality-of-life outcomes in patients with metastatic spine disease: who benefits?. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 34 (03) 1-7
• 37 Pahuta MA, Fisk F, Versteeg AL. et al; AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis. Spine 2021; 46 (17) 1165-1171