ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Construction of a quality of life scale for older individuals with neuro-co-cardiological diseases.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop a Quality of Life (QOL) assessment scale for older patients with Neuro-co-Cardiological Diseases (NCCD) and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale.
methodThe study participants were derived from the Elderly Individuals with NCCD Registered Cohort Study (EINCCDRCS), a multicenter registry of patients with NCCD. The preliminary testing of the questionnaire was conducted among 10 older individuals aged 65 years and older who had NCCD and were recruited from the registry. Other patients who met the inclusion criteria participated in the field testing. After verifying the unidimensionality, local independence, and monotonicity assumptions of the scale, we employed the Rasch model within Item Response Theory framework to assess the quality of the scale through methods including internal consistency, criterion validity, Wright map, and item functioning differential. Subsequently, we assessed the construct validity of the scale by combining exploratory factor analysis with confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsBased on well-validated scales such as the short-form WHOQOL-OLD, HeartQOL, IQCODE, and SF-36, an original Neuro-co-Cardiological Diseases Quality of Life scale (NCCDQOL) was developed. 196 individuals from the EINCCDRCS were included in the study, with 10 participating in the preliminary testing and 186 in the field testing. Based on the results of the preliminary testing, the original questionnaire was refined through item deletion and adjustment, resulting in an 11-item NCCDQOL questionnaire. The Rasch analysis of the field testing data led to the removal of 21 misfitting individuals. The NCCDQOL demonstrated a four-category structure, achieved by combining two response categories. This structure aligned with the assumptions of unidimensionality, local independence, and monotonicity. The NCCDQOL also exhibited good validity and reliability.
conclusionThe revised NCCDQOL questionnaire demonstrated good reliability and validity in the Rasch model, indicating promising potential for clinical application.
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.