Bladder cancer index: cross-cultural adaptation into Spanish and psychometric evaluation.

BACKGROUND The Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) is so far the only instrument applicable across all bladder cancer patients, independent of tumor infiltration or treatment applied. We developed a Spanish version of the BCI, and assessed its acceptability and metric properties. METHODS For the adaptation into Spanish we used the forward and back-translation method, expert panels, and cognitive debriefing patient interviews. For the assessment of metric properties we used data from 197 bladder cancer patients from a multi-center prospective study. The Spanish BCI and the SF-36 Health Survey were self-administered before and 12 months after treatment. Reliability was estimated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed through the multi-trait multi-method matrix. The magnitude of change was quantified by effect sizes to assess responsiveness. RESULTS Reliability coefficients ranged 0.75-0.97. The validity analysis confirmed moderate associations between the BCI function and bother subscales for urinary (r = 0.61) and bowel (r = 0.53) domains; conceptual independence among all BCI domains (r ≤ 0.3); and low correlation coefficients with the SF-36 scores, ranging 0.14-0.48. Among patients reporting global improvement at follow-up, pre-post treatment changes were statistically significant for the urinary domain and urinary bother subscale, with effect sizes of 0.38 and 0.53. CONCLUSIONS The Spanish BCI is well accepted, reliable, valid, responsive, and similar in performance compared to the original instrument. These findings support its use, both in Spanish and international studies, as a valuable and comprehensive tool for assessing quality of life across a wide range of bladder cancer patients.

Evaluation of two HbA1c point-of-care analyzers.

BACKGROUND Measurement of HbA1c is the most important parameter to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. Different point-of-care devices for HbA1c are available. The aim of this study was to evaluate two point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzers (DCA Vantage from Siemens and Afinion from Axis-Shield). We studied the bias and precision as well as interference from carbamylated hemoglobin. METHODS Bias of the POCT analyzers was obtained by measuring 53 blood samples from diabetic patients with a wide range of HbA1c, 4%-14% (20-130 mmol/mol), and comparing the results with those obtained by the laboratory method: HPLC HA 8160 Menarini. Precision was performed by 20 successive determinations of two samples with low 4.2% (22 mmol/mol) and high 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) HbA1c values. The possible interference from carbamylated hemoglobin was studied using 25 samples from patients with chronic renal failure. RESULTS The means of the differences between measurements performed by each POCT analyzer and the laboratory method (95% confidence interval) were: 0.28% (p<0.005) (0.10-0.44) for DCA and 0.27% (p<0.001) (0.19-0.35) for Afinion. Correlation coefficients were: r=0.973 for DCA, and r=0.991 for Afinion. The mean bias observed by using samples from chronic renal failure patients were 0.2 (range -0.4, 0.4) for DCA and 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5) for Afinion. Imprecision results were: CV=3.1% (high HbA1c) and 2.97% (low HbA1c) for DCA, CV=1.95% (high HbA1c) and 2.66% (low HbA1c) for Afinion. CONCLUSIONS Both POCT analyzers for HbA1c show good correlation with the laboratory method and acceptable precision.