2020
DOI: 10.1177/1534734620921036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Turkish Adaptation of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale–Short Form

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Diabetic Foot Scale–Short Form (DFS-SF). The study was cross-sectional and conducted between January and October 2019 in a diabetic foot council of a university hospital. A total of 194 diabetic foot patients participated in the study. A Patient Identification Form and DFS-SF were used for data collection. Forward and backward translations were used in language validity. Expert opinions were obtained to determi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
15
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Forty-six studies (43 reports) providing information on the measurement properties of 10 different PROMs were included. These identified measurement instruments were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Diabetic Foot Questionnaire (AOFAS-DFQ), 36 the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule/Scale (CWIS), 30,37,40,41,43,47,51,56,58,64 the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale (DFS), 29,52,53,62 the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF), 33,42,45,46,[48][49][50]57,65 the Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in Diabetic Foot (HRQLQDFU), 44 the Neuropathy-and Foot Ulcer-Specific Quality of Life (NeuroQoL), 59,63,66 the Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QoL-DN), 60,61 the Quality of Life Instrument, 54 the Wound-QoL, 31,32,34,35,38,39,55,[67][68][69][70][71] and the Wound-QoL revised version. 70 The characteristics of these PROMs and the included studies ...…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Forty-six studies (43 reports) providing information on the measurement properties of 10 different PROMs were included. These identified measurement instruments were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Diabetic Foot Questionnaire (AOFAS-DFQ), 36 the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule/Scale (CWIS), 30,37,40,41,43,47,51,56,58,64 the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale (DFS), 29,52,53,62 the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF), 33,42,45,46,[48][49][50]57,65 the Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in Diabetic Foot (HRQLQDFU), 44 the Neuropathy-and Foot Ulcer-Specific Quality of Life (NeuroQoL), 59,63,66 the Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QoL-DN), 60,61 the Quality of Life Instrument, 54 the Wound-QoL, 31,32,34,35,38,39,55,[67][68][69][70][71] and the Wound-QoL revised version. 70 The characteristics of these PROMs and the included studies ...…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality of 20 of these studies was rated as doubtful mainly because crucial aspects of the methodology used were not sufficiently clarified. We rated the quality of 5 studies 31,39,53,57,64 as inadequate because either the method used was inappropriate or respondents were not asked about the comprehensibility of all items and response options.…”
Section: Content Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A higher score indicates a higher quality of life among diabetic foot ulcers individuals. The scale has been translated and tested for reliability and validity in Spain [ 7 ], Greece [ 8 ], Turkey [ 9 ], Korea [ 10 ], and the Netherlands [ 11 ]. However, in China, there is no specific validated instrument to assess the QoL of patients with DFUs at present.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A higher score indicates a higher quality of life among diabetic foot individuals. The scale has been translated and tested for reliability and validity in Spain [7], Greece [8], Turkey [9], Korea [10], and the Netherlands [11]. However, in China, there is no speci c validated instrument to assess the QoL of patients with DFU.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%