ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2023
Development and content validity of a website for patients with coronary artery disease.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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.
- Global nursing competency scale in blood transfusion: development and psychometric validity.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Prenatal care with blind pregnant women: validation of an instrument for nurses on knowledge, attitude and practice.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto develop and analyze content validity evidence of a website for patients with coronary artery disease.
methodsa methodological study, carried out in the phases: Definition - determined contents for inclusion in the website, architecture and design; Implementation - subjects included in the website; Assessment - website submitted to analysis by 13 experts and eight laypersons regarding organization, content and design, on a scale of 1 (no agreement) to 4 (complete agreement). Items that reached Content Validity Ratio (CVR) higher than the established critical values and Content Validity Index greater than 0.80 were considered valid.
resultseight domains related to secondary prevention in coronary heart disease were included on the website. Critical CVR and adequate CVI were obtained according to professional and lay experts.
conclusionsthe website was developed, achieving adequate content validity evidence, and can be used as an educational tool for this population.
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.