↓ Skip to main content

Validity, reliability and interpretability of the Thai version of the urticaria control test (UCT)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Validity, reliability and interpretability of the Thai version of the urticaria control test (UCT)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0466-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanokvalai Kulthanan, Leena Chularojanamontri, Papapit Tuchinda, Chuda Rujitharanawong, Marcus Maurer, Karsten Weller

Abstract

The Long Form and Short Form of the German (original) version of the Urticaria Control Test (UCT) have shown to be valid and reliable instruments for assessing patients with all types of chronic urticaria (CU). The cutoff scores for identifying patients with well-controlled disease were ≥ 24 and ≥ 12 for Long and Short Forms, respectively. However, the sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the UCT have never been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to investigate the validity, reliability, screening accuracy, sensitivity to change and MCID of the linguistically validated translation of the UCT into the Thai language for assessing CU in the Thai population. A structured translation and pre-testing were done to cross-culturally adapt the UCT for the Thai language. All measurement properties of both forms of the Thai UCT were validated in 169 patients with CU. There were strong correlations between the Thai UCT score and disease activity, health-related quality of life impairment, and disease control (all correlations ≥ 0.7). Good internal consistency and excellent intra-rater reliability were demonstrated. The same cutoff scores to define patients with well-controlled disease should be used as those recommended for the original UCT version. MCIDs equated to increase in scores of 6 and 3 for the Long and Short Forms, respectively, of the Thai UCT should be used to identify patients who had minimal responses. Score increments of ≥10 and ≥ 6 for Long and Short Forms, respectively, should be used to define patients who had marked responses. This study confirmed the applicability of the UCT for use in Thailand, a country that has a very different language and cultural setting than that of Germany and the United States. Further studies are required to examine the suitability of the UCT for use in the pediatric population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 18%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,451,892
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,670
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,037
of 300,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#25
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.