ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Cultural translation of the constipation assessment a study on the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the constipation severity index.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the breast cancer stigma assessment scale among Chinese patients.Frontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessing the severity of constipation in patients is important for tailoring treatment plans and monitoring outcomes. However, validated assessment tools for constipation severity are limited in China. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Constipation Severity Index (CSI). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two tertiary hospitals in China. A total of 621 patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for constipation were enrolled. The scale's reliability and validity were assessed using Content Validity Index (CVI), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Results: The expert-rated Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was 0.90. EFA revealed a three-factor structure comprising 16 items, accounting for 71.81% of the total variance. CFA results suggested acceptable model fit (χ2 = 257.711, df = 96, Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CSI. While the initial results are promising, further research is needed to validate its applicability in various clinical settings and patient populations. The CSI may potentially serve as a useful tool for assessing constipation severity in Chinese patients, but additional validation studies are necessary before its widespread 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.