Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026
Translation, cultural adaptation, and pilot testing of the standardized tool for the assessment of bruxism and the bruxism screener in China.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song XuTong, Mo SiYi, Zhang YaoJun, Li Yuan, Liu JingWen, Lobbezoo Frank, Manfredini Daniele, Ahlberg Jari, Bracci Alessandro, Lei Jie, Fu KaiYuan, Xu Xiaoxiang, Cao Ye
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The newly established Standardized Tool for the Assessment of Bruxism (STAB) and the bruxism screener (BruxScreen) offer thorough, methodical, and readily available instruments for the evaluation and screening of bruxism in clinical settings and research endeavors.
METHODS: The Chinese version provided is a translation of the original English text. The Chinese version of the STAB/BruxScreen was developed in accordance with the 12-step guideline for translation and cultural adaptation established by the expert group. The translation team consisted of 13 members: 4 study coordinators, 2 forward translators, 2 rear translators, and 5 expert panelists. Simultaneously, the Chinese iteration of the STAB and BruxScreen underwent pilot testing to assess its comprehensibility and practicality. Pilot testing comprised 60 participants for the STAB (20 patients, 20 dental students, 20 dentists) and 40 independent volunteers for the BruxScreen (20 patients, 10 students, 10 dentists).
RESULTS: The STAB completion time averaged 17.8 minutes for patients (self-report) and 11.4 minutes and 14.3 minutes for dentists and dental students (examination), respectively. The BruxScreen-Q (questionnaire) completion time averaged 1.6 minutes, and the BruxScreen-C (clinical examination) duration averaged 1.8 minutes per patient. High comprehensibility was achieved, with 95.5% of the STAB items and 100% of the BruxScreen items requiring no clarification. All 20 dentists (100%) endorsed both tools as clinically feasible. The test-retest and inter-examiner reliability of the BruxScreen showed excellent agreement (Kappa > 0.8, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese versions demonstrate satisfactory preliminary comprehensibility and feasibility; the BruxScreen shows excellent reliability. Comprehensive validation in larger samples is required before these tools can be applied in clinical practice or large-scale screening.
METHODS: The Chinese version provided is a translation of the original English text. The Chinese version of the STAB/BruxScreen was developed in accordance with the 12-step guideline for translation and cultural adaptation established by the expert group. The translation team consisted of 13 members: 4 study coordinators, 2 forward translators, 2 rear translators, and 5 expert panelists. Simultaneously, the Chinese iteration of the STAB and BruxScreen underwent pilot testing to assess its comprehensibility and practicality. Pilot testing comprised 60 participants for the STAB (20 patients, 20 dental students, 20 dentists) and 40 independent volunteers for the BruxScreen (20 patients, 10 students, 10 dentists).
RESULTS: The STAB completion time averaged 17.8 minutes for patients (self-report) and 11.4 minutes and 14.3 minutes for dentists and dental students (examination), respectively. The BruxScreen-Q (questionnaire) completion time averaged 1.6 minutes, and the BruxScreen-C (clinical examination) duration averaged 1.8 minutes per patient. High comprehensibility was achieved, with 95.5% of the STAB items and 100% of the BruxScreen items requiring no clarification. All 20 dentists (100%) endorsed both tools as clinically feasible. The test-retest and inter-examiner reliability of the BruxScreen showed excellent agreement (Kappa > 0.8, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese versions demonstrate satisfactory preliminary comprehensibility and feasibility; the BruxScreen shows excellent reliability. Comprehensive validation in larger samples is required before these tools can be applied in clinical practice or large-scale screening.