ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Validation of the Chinese version of the financial toxicity scale in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Financial Toxicity in Women with Endometriosis: Psychometric Validation of the Polish COST-FACIT with Analysis of Demographic and Clinical Factors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto confirm the validity of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) Scale in Chinese patients with wet age-related macular degeneration.
methodsA tertiary hospital in Wuxi's ophthalmology outpatient clinic treated 217 patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) were chosen using the convenience sample approach for a questionnaire survey between October 2023 and February 2024. The Chinese version of the COST and general patient information were included in the survey. Critical ratio analysis and correlation analysis were used to examine the items on the scale. The structural validity of the scale was evaluated using factor analysis, the reliability of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient and retest reliability, and the content validity of the scale was evaluated using the Content Validity Index (CVI).
resultsThe item analysis results demonstrated that high and low subgroups could be identified using The COST scale's Chinese translation (P < 0.01).; A linear positive correlation was observed between the scores of each item and the scale's overall scores (r values of 0.243 ~ 0.878, P < 0.01), and the scores of factor 1, factor 2, and factor 3 showed a linear positive correlation with the total scores of the scale (accordingly, r values were 0.974, 0.505, and 0.300; P < 0.01). and the scores of each item were linearly and positively correlated with the scores of the common factors to which they belonged (r values of 0.642 to 1.000, P < 0.01). Content validity showed that the I-CVI of each item was 0.857 ~ 1.00, and the S-CVI was 0.974. Three metrics in all, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 67.739%, were obtained through exploratory factor analysis. Each item's loading on the corresponding dimensions varied from 0.638 to 0.954. The Cronbach's α coefficient for the entire scale was 0.876(95% CI: 0.85-0.899). The reliability of the retest was 0.970 (95% CI: 0.936-0.990).
conclusionThe Chinese version of the COST scale shows potential applicability pending further validation.
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.