Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the French language translation of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).

BACKGROUND: The WOSI (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index) is a self-administered quality of life questionnaire designed to be used as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials on shoulder instability, as well as to measure the effect of an intervention on any particular patient. It is validated and is reliable and sensitive. As it is designed to measure subjective outcome, it is important that translation should be methodologically rigorous, as it is subject to both linguistic and cultural interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To produce a French language version of the WOSI that is culturally adapted to both European and North American French-speaking populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated protocol was used to create a French language WOSI questionnaire (WOSI-Fr) that would be culturally acceptable for both European and North American French-speaking populations. Reliability and responsiveness analyses were carried out, and the WOSI-Fr was compared to the F-QuickDASH-D/S (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand-French translation), and Walch-Duplay scores. RESULTS: A French language version of the WOSI (WOSI-Fr) was accepted by a multinational committee. The WOSI-Fr was then validated using a total of 144 native French-speaking subjects from Canada and Switzerland. Comparison of results on two WOSI-Fr questionnaires completed at a mean interval of 16 days showed that the WOSI-Fr had strong reliability, with a Pearson and interclass correlation of r=0.85 (P=0.01) and ICC=0.84 [95% CI=0.78-0.88]. Responsiveness, at a mean 378.9 days after surgical intervention, showed strong correlation with that of the F-QuickDASH-D/S, with r=0.67 (P<0.01). Moreover, a standardized response means analysis to calculate effect size for both the WOSI-Fr and the F-QuickDASH-D/S showed that the WOSI-Fr had a significantly greater ability to detect change (SRM 1.55 versus 0.87 for the WOSI-Fr and F-QuickDASH-D/S respectively, P<0.01). The WOSI-Fr showed fair correlation with the Walch-Duplay. DISCUSSION: A French-language translation of the WOSI questionnaire was created and validated for use in both Canadian and Swiss French-speaking populations. This questionnaire will facilitate outcome assessment in French-speaking settings, collaboration in multinational studies and comparison between studies performed in different countries. TYPE OF STUDY: Multicenter cohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.