Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study. Issue 4 (9th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Zhigang; Wang, Guoqiang; Wu, Yuchen; Guo, Jin; Ding, Nannan; Jiang, Biantong; Wei, Huaping; Li, Bin; Yue, Weigang; Tian, Jinhui
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 11:Issue 4(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-04-09
• Subjects: adult intensive & critical care -- clinical trials; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045550
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To translate and adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into Chinese version ('CPAx-Chi'), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cut-off point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW). Study design: Cross-sectional observational study. Methods: Forward and back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pretesting of CPAx into CPAx-Chi were based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Two hundred critically ill adult patients (median age: 53 years; 64% men) with duration of ICU stay ≥48 hours and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥11 were included in this study. Two researchers simultaneously and independently assessed eligible patients using the Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi. Results: The content validity index of items was 0.889. The content validity index of scale was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r=0.758 (p<0.001) for researcher A, and r=0.65 (p<0.001) for researcher B. Cronbach's α was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 were 0.899 (95% CI 0.862 to 1.025) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.824 to 0.925) for researcher B. The best cut-off point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75% and 87% for researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cut-off points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Cohen's kappa=0.845 (p=0.02) in researcher A and 0.839 (p=0.04) for researcher B. Conclusions: CPAx-Chi demonstrated content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk of ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cut-off of 31.