ArticleActa diabetologica2023
Italian translation and validation of the CGM satisfaction scale questionnaire.
Article in Acta diabetologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduced Diabetes Burden Over Glycemic Gains With the Dexcom G7 Upgrade in Youth on Automated Insulin Delivery System.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Measures of Patient-Reported Expectations, Acceptance, and Satisfaction Using Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly important for assessing patient satisfaction with diabetes technologies. PROs must be assessed with validated questionnaires in clinical practice and research studies. Our aim was to translate and validate the Italian version of the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) Satisfaction (CGM-SAT) scale questionnaire.
methodsQuestionnaire validation followed MAPI Research Trust guidelines and included forward translation, reconciliation, backward translation, and cognitive debriefing.
resultsThe final version of the questionnaire was administered to 210 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 232 parents. The completion rate was excellent, with almost 100% of items answered. The overall Cronbach's coefficient was 0.71 and 0.85 for young people (patients) and parents indicating moderate and good internal consistency, respectively. Parent-young people agreement was 0.404 (95% confidence interval: 0.391-0.417), indicating moderate agreement between the two assessments. Factor analysis identified that factors assessing the "benefits" and "hassles" of CGM accounted for 33.9% and 12.9% of score variance in young people and 29.6% and 19.8% in parents, respectively. DISCUSSION: We present the successful Italian translation and validation of the CGM-SAT scale questionnaire, which will be useful for assessing satisfaction with Italian T1D patients using CGM systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.