ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
Translation and cross-cultural adaption of the German version of the Intensive Care Unit Mobility Scale (IMS).
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to translate the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) into German, creating a cross-culturally adapted version for use in Germany. MATERIAL AND
methodsResearchers from Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) translated the scale independently, resulting in two preliminary versions of the IMS. The UKE group incorporated a clinical perspective from a German nurse and used a forward-backward translation approach. The Charité group included a physician and a medical student for forward translation, followed by a cognitive debriefing with medical staff and backward translation. To merge the two German versions of the IMS, a translator from Charité compared the versions and determined which was more comprehensible. The updated IMS was then sent to the UKE, where researchers revised and commented on the updated version. Researchers from both institutions discussed the updated version, resulting in a final German IMS.
resultsThe translation and back-translation process at UKE identified minimal deviations from the original wording, advancing the preliminary German translation to the expert review stage without additional loops. The expert review committee confirmed cultural equivalence, eliminating the need for further changes. At Charité, 30 medical professionals (including nurses, medical students, physiotherapists, and physicians) approved the structure and translation of 11 items with minor changes during cognitive debriefing. Only slight differences were identified and merged during the final integration of both versions. A final version was created by incorporating phonetically advantageous elements.
conclusionThe final version of the German IMS aligns with the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the German healthcare context. It is essential to note that validation is still necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41729269What 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.