Spanish Version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Quality of Life Questionnaire: Translation, Cross-cultural Adaptation, and Validation.

Background: The Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Quality of Life (ACL-QOL) questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess the effect of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury on the lives of patients. It was originally written in English, which may affect its use when completed by nonnative English speakers. Purpose: To translate and adapt the ACL-QOL to Spanish and provide evidence of its psychometric properties. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 183 patients with an ACL injury from 4 Catalan hospitals were included: 99 patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction (ACLR) completed the Spanish version of the ACL-QOL (ACL-QOL-Sp) twice (mean interval, 15.2 days) in 2 weeks for test-retest reliability, and 84 patients completed the ACL-QOL-Sp, the Lysholm knee scoring scale, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) before and at 4 and 9 months after ACLR to assess responsiveness. The association between the ACL-QOL-Sp and the other outcome measures was evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient. Results: The ACL-QOL-Sp showed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.96) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97). The standard error of measurement was 3.6, also suggesting the precision of measurements. The smallest detectable change was 9.98 in 94% of patients. No association was found between the ACL-QOL-Sp score and the Tegner score or SF-12 mental component summary score; however, a moderate correlation was found with the overall KOOS score (r = -0.545), Lysholm score (r = 0.509), and SF-12 physical component summary score (r = 0.607). The correlation ranged from weak for the KOOS-Symptoms subscore (r = -0.290) to moderate for the KOOS-Quality of Life subscore (r = -0.698). No ceiling or floor effects were observed. The ACL-QOL-Sp showed a moderate effect size (0.73) at 4 months but a large effect size (1.70) at 9 months. Conclusion: The ACL-QOL-Sp showed adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness in evaluating quality of life after ACLR in Spanish-speaking patients.

Comparison of a Mobile Health Electronic Visual Analog Scale App With a Traditional Paper Visual Analog Scale for Pain Evaluation: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate quantification of pain in a clinical setting is vital. The use of an electronic pain scale enables data to be collected, analyzed, and utilized much faster compared with traditional paper-based scales. The advancement of smart technology in pediatric and adult pain evaluation may offer opportunities to introduce easy-to-use and reliable pain assessment methods within different clinical settings. If promptly introduced within different pediatric and adult pain clinic services, validated and easily accessible mobile health pain apps may lead to early pain detection, promoting improvement in patient's quality of life and leading to potentially less time off from school or work. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional observational study aimed to investigate the interchangeability of an electronic visual analog scale (eVAS) app with a traditional paper visual analog scale (pVAS) among Australian children, adolescents, and adults for pain evaluation. METHODS: Healthy participants (age range 10-75 years) were recruited from a sporting club and a secondary school in Melbourne (Australia). The data collection process involved application of pressure (8.5 kg/cm2) from a Wagner Force Dial FDK 20 to the midpoint of the thumb. The pressure was applied twice with a 5-minute interval. At each pressure application, participants were asked to randomly record their pain perception using the "eVAS" accessible via the "Interactive Clinics" app and the traditional pVAS. Statistical analysis was conducted to determine intermethod and intramethod reliabilities. RESULTS: Overall, 109 healthy participants were recruited. Adults (mean age 42.43 years, SD 14.50 years) had excellent reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96). Children and adolescents (mean age 13.91 years, SD 2.89 years) had moderate-to-good intermethod and intramethod reliabilities, with an ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.87) and average ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The eVAS app appears to be interchangeable compared with the traditional pVAS among children, adolescents, and adults. This pain evaluation method may offer new opportunities to introduce user-friendly and validated pain assessment apps for patients, clinicians, and allied health professionals.

Validation of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale mHealth Tool for Acute Pain Assessment: Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of pain is required to improve its management and in research. The visual analog scale (VAS) on paper format has been shown to be an accurate, valid, reliable, and reproducible way to measure pain intensity. However, some limitations should be considered, some of which can be implemented with the introduction of an electronic VAS version, suitable to be used both in a tablet and a smartphone. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a new method of recording pain level by comparing the traditional paper VAS with the pain level module on the newly designed Interactive Clinics app. METHODS: A prospective observational cross-sectional study was designed. The sample consisted of 102 participants aged 18 to 65 years. A Force Dial FDK 20 algometer (Wagner Instruments) was employed to induce mild pressure symptoms on the participants' thumbs. Pain was measured using a paper VAS (10 cm line) and the app. RESULTS: Intermethod reliability estimated by ICC(3,1) was 0.86 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.81 to 0.90, indicating good reliability. Intramethod reliability estimated by ICCa(3,1) was 0.86 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.81 to 0.90, also indicating good reliability. Bland-Altman analysis showed a difference of 0.175 (0.49), and limits of agreement ranged from -0.79 to 1.14. CONCLUSIONS: The pain level module on the app is highly reliable and interchangeable with the paper VAS version. This tool could potentially help clinicians and researchers precisely assess pain in a simple, economic way with the use of a ubiquitous technology.