Tradução e Adaptação Cultural do Questionário PRTEE (patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation) para a Língua Portuguesa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Frequently found in clinical rehabilitation, tennis elbow may induce pain and functional decline.Its evaluation is considered crucial; however, some evaluations lack more individuals' functional information.In Brazil, this disorder doesn't have any specific evaluation tools.The development of the 'Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation' (PRTEE) questionnaire, in Canada, has enabled tennis elbow measurement through a systematic approach of translation and cultural adaptation of the survey.Purpose: To translate the English version of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation questionnaire to Portuguese; check the level of understanding among health professionals and laymen; identify suggestions regarding its structure; and develop a new version, culturally adapted to the Brazilian population.Methods: Two translations of the original English version to Portuguese were prepared; they were then translated back in two new English versions.The two new English translations were compared to the original English version; they were analyzed and, in the presence of differences, modified.A Brazilian version of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation was obtained and assessed concerningits contents and cultural equivalence.In order to verify the level of understanding, the questionnaire was applied to health professionals (48) and laymen (52).In the process of cultural equivalence of the instrument, the questions indexed as not-understood were reformulated.Results: In the first application, three items of the questionnaire reached a percentage greater than 15% of not-understood.After being reformulated and reapplied, these items showed high percentage of understanding.Conclusion: A culturally adapted version of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) was developed to Brazilian health professionals and laymen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".