Search

Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dissemination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated translation and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications. Materials and methods: A well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and translation to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach's α and rWG index, respectively. Results: The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach's α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach's α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and subscales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the safety and effectiveness of super-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi (LPC)., Patients and Methods: An international multicentre, prospective, randomised, unblinded controlled study was conducted at 10 academic medical centres in China, India, and Turkey, between August 2015 and June 2017. In all, 160 consecutive patients with 1-2 cm LPC were randomised to receive SMP or RIRS. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR). Stone-free status was defined as no residual fragments of ≥0.3 cm on plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder, and ultrasonography at 1-day and on computed tomography at 3-months after operation. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, operating time, postoperative pain scores, auxiliary procedures, complications, and hospital stay. Postoperative follow-up was scheduled at 3 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT02519634)., Results: The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The mean (sd) stone diameters were comparable between the groups, at 1.50 (0.29) cm for the SMP group vs 1.43 (0.34) cm for the RIRS group (P = 0.214). SMP achieved a significantly better 1-day and 3-month SFR than RIRS (1-day SFR 91.2% vs 71.2%, P = 0.001; 3-months SFR 93.8% vs 82.5%, P = 0.028). The auxiliary procedure rate was lower in the SMP group. RIRS was found to be superior with lower haemoglobin drop and less postoperative pain. Blood transfusion was not required in either group. There was no significant difference in operating time, hospital stay, and complication rates, between the groups., Conclusions: SMP was more effective than RIRS for treating 1-2 cm LPC in terms of a better SFR and lesser auxiliary procedure rate. The complications and hospital stay were comparable. RIRS has the advantage of less postoperative pain., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)