↓ Skip to main content

Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and ICU Mobility Scale: translation into Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and ICU Mobility Scale: translation into Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1806-37562015000000301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yurika Maria Fogaça Kawaguchi, Ricardo Kenji Nawa, Thais Borgheti Figueiredo, Lourdes Martins, Ruy Camargo Pires-Neto

Abstract

To translate the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score and the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) into Portuguese, creating versions that are cross-culturally adapted for use in Brazil, and to determine the interobserver agreement and reliability for both versions. The processes of translation and cross-cultural validation consisted in the following: preparation, translation, reconciliation, synthesis, back-translation, review, approval, and pre-test. The Portuguese-language versions of both instruments were then used by two researchers to evaluate critically ill ICU patients. Weighted kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots were used in order to verify interobserver agreement for the two instruments. In each of the domains of the instruments, interobserver reliability was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The correlation between the instruments was assessed by Spearman's correlation test. The study sample comprised 103 patients-56 (54%) of whom were male-with a mean age of 52 ± 18 years. The main reason for ICU admission (in 44%) was respiratory failure. Both instruments showed excellent interobserver agreement ( > 0.90) and reliability ( > 0.90) in all domains. Interobserver bias was low for the IMS and the Perme Score (-0.048 ± 0.350 and -0.06 ± 0.73, respectively). The 95% CIs for the same instruments ranged from -0.73 to 0.64 and -1.50 to 1.36, respectively. There was also a strong positive correlation between the two instruments (r = 0.941; p < 0.001). In their versions adapted for use in Brazil, both instruments showed high interobserver agreement and reliability. Realizar a tradução e a validação cultural para a língua portuguesa falada no Brasil e determinar a concordância e a confiabilidade dos instrumentos Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score (designado Perme Escore) e ICU Mobility Scale (designada Escala de Mobilidade em UTI, EMU). Os processos de tradução e adaptação cultural seguiram as seguintes etapas: preparação, tradução, reconciliação, síntese, tradução reversa, revisão, aprovação e pré-teste. Após esses processos, as versões em português dos dois instrumentos foram utilizadas por dois pesquisadores na avaliação de pacientes críticos em UTI. O índice kappa ponderado e a disposição gráfica de Bland-Altman foram utilizados para verificar a concordância entre os instrumentos. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach foi utilizado para verificar a confiabilidade entre as respostas dos avaliadores dentro de cada domínio dos instrumentos. A correlação entre os instrumentos foi verificada pelo teste de correlação de Spearman. A amostra foi composta por 103 pacientes, sendo a maioria homens (n = 56; 54%), com média de idade = 52 ± 18 anos. O principal motivo de internação nas UTIs foi insuficiência respiratória (em 44%). Os dois instrumentos apresentaram excelente concordância interobservador (> 0,90) e confiabilidade ( > 0,90) em todos os domínios. Constatou-se um baixo viés interobservador na EMU e no Perme Escore (-0,048 ± 0,350 e -0,06 ± 0,73, respectivamente). Os IC95% para os mesmos instrumentos variaram, respectivamente, de -0,73 a 0,64 e de -1,50 a 1,36, respectivamente. Além disso, verificou-se alta correlação positiva entre os dois instrumentos (r = 0,941; p < 0,001). As versões dos dois instrumentos apresentaram alta concordância e confiabilidade interobservador.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 177 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 19%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 6 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 74 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 18%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 81 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#6,488,657
of 25,863,888 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#99
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,401
of 401,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#6
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,863,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.