ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the lean management scale for nursing services in hospitals.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lean management has been increasingly applied in nursing services to improve workflow efficiency and reduce waste in care processes. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Lean Management Scale for Nursing Services in Hospitals (LMS-N) among Chinese clinical nurses. Methods: A total of 2,127 clinical nurses were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Liaoning Province, China, using convenience sampling. Following Brislin's translation guidelines, the LMS-N was translated and culturally adapted into Chinese. Psychometric evaluation included item analysis, internal consistency and test-retest reliability, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, parallel analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance testing. Results: Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis supported a five-factor structure, explaining 62.609% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated acceptable model fit (CMIN/DF = 2.130, SRMR = 0.046, RMSEA = 0.032, GFI = 0.967, AGFI = 0.958, NFI = 0.971, IFI = 0.985, RFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.985). Reliability indices indicated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's Conclusion: The Chinese version of the LMS-N demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity among clinical nurses from tertiary hospitals in one province of China. The scale may be useful for assessing lean management implementation in nursing practice, although further validation in more diverse settings is warranted.
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.