Linguistic and cultural adaptation of the POSAS 3.0 questionnaire for assessing the quality of linear scar formation and its testing in the Russian patient population after surgery of thyroid gland diseases

BACKGROUND: When assessing the effectiveness of scar treatment, it is important to consider both the specialist’s assessment of the scar characteristics and the patient’s self-assessment of their condition. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a questionnaire recommended by international guidelines for evaluating the quality of scar formation, including after surgical treatment.

AIM: To perform linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Russian version of the POSAS 3.0 questionnaire and to test it in the Russian patient population with various thyroid pathologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The linguistic and cultural adaptation of the POSAS 3.0 questionnaire was performed in accordance with modern international recommendations. It included the procedure of forward and back translations, testing of the Russian versions via patients’ interviews, expert evaluation of Russian version by specialists and decentering.

RESULTS: The test version of the questionnaire was tested on 15 patients with various thyroid pathologies. Based on the interviews, an acceptable indicator of the external validity of the Russian version of the questionnaire was established. According to the survey of specialists (n = 9), its content validity was confirmed.

CONCLUSION: The linguistic and cultural adaptation process resulted in the final Russian version of the POSAS 3.0 questionnaire, which is equivalent to the original version and corresponds to the ethno-linguistic characteristics of the population. The use of the POSAS 3.0 questionnaire in research and clinical practice is possible after assessment of psychometric properties of these tools.

1. Carrière ME, van, Paul. Scar Assessment Scales. Springer eBooks. 2020:125-132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44766-3_14

2. Park JW, Koh YG, Shin SH, et al. Review of Scar Assessment Scales. Medical Lasers; Engineering, Basic Research, and Clinical Application. 2022;11(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.25289/ML.2022.11.1.1

3. Nguyen TA, Feldstein SI, Shumaker PR, Krakowski AC. A review of scar assessment scales. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015;34(1):28-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.12788/j.sder.2015.0125

4. Gold MH, McGuire M, Mustoe TA, et al. Updated International Clinical Recommendations on Scar Management: Part 2—Algorithms for Scar Prevention and Treatment. Dermatologic Surgery. 2014;40(8):825-831. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.0000000000000050

5. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, et al. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: A Reliable and Feasible Tool for Scar Evaluation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2004;113(7):1960-1965. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56

6. Chan EKN, Edwards TC, Haywood K, et al. Implementing patientreported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(3):621-627. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4

7. Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Guidi J, et al. Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(4):222-232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000516599

8. Carrière ME, Mokkink LB, Tyack Z, et al. Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study. Quality of Life Research. 2022;32(2):583-592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03244-6

9. Guidelines for Best Practice in Cross-Cultural Surveys. 2016, from https://ccsg.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CCSG_Guidelines_Archive_2010_Version.pdf

10. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health. 2005;8(2):94-104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

11. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46(12):1417-1432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n

12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the Process of cross-cultural Adaptation of self-report Measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

13. Ionova TI. Principles of linguistic and cultural adaptation of quality of life questionnaires. An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment. 2018;(31-32):12-7. (In Russ.).

14. Viskarra ME. Study of the quality of life and functional status of patients with ankle fractures and dislocations using scales and questionnaires: Cand. Sci. diss. Moscow. 2011: 83-86. (In Russ.).

15. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(5):1159-1170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0

16. van Zuijlen PPM, Mokkink LB, Hoogewerf CJ, de Vet HCW. The official update of the POSAS: An invitation to share experiences to improve the POSAS in ‘Project POSAS 3.0’. Burns. 2017;43(4):893-894. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2017.01.019

17. Bozkurt M, Ceran F, Guvercin E, Filinte GT. A new method for scar tissue assessment: Modified POSAS observer scale. Burns. 2017;43(2):445-448. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2016.04.022

18. Goei H, van der Vlies CH, Tuinebreijer WE, et al. Predictive validity of short term scar quality on final burn scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in patients with minor to moderate burn severity. Burns. 2017;43(4):715-723. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2016.10.012