Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Munro Scale in Italian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Munro Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale for Perioperative Patients - Adult (Munro scale) is a pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment scale for adult surgical patients. It consists of 3 sections relating to the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. It is not available in Italian. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to translate the Munro scale into Italian and assess its cross-cultural content and face validity. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process adhered to World Health Organization guidelines including forward translation, expert review, and back translation. Health care professionals with a minimum of 5 years of experience working in the operating rooms of different hospitals in northern Italy were invited to participate in a content and face validation of the translated instrument. Content validity was evaluated by rating the relevance of each scale item using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant). Face validity (comprehensibility and clarity) was also measured using a 4-point rating scale. RESULTS: Expert agreement of the translated instrument reached a Fleiss' kappa of 0.95. The content validity index was 0.91, and all items had a score ≥ 3 for clarity and comprehensibility. CONCLUSION: The Italian version of the Munro scale can be used safely to assess patient risk of injuries during the perioperative period in Italy. The translation and validation study results confirmed that the Italian version was consistent with the original version. Further testing, including prospective validation, is needed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".