ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Validation of a Novel Dietary Knowledge and Needs Questionnaire: The Postoperative Colorectal Cancer TCM Diet Questionnaire (PCRC-TDQ).
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative colorectal cancer (CRC) patients may benefit from both conventional nutritional support and culturally specific Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) dietary guidance, yet no validated instrument specifically assesses their TCM dietary knowledge and educational needs. This study aimed to develop and preliminarily validate the Postoperative Colorectal Cancer TCM Diet Questionnaire (PCRC-TDQ) for assessing postoperative CRC patients' TCM dietary knowledge and educational needs. Methods: An initial 40-item pool was generated through literature review, multidisciplinary discussion, qualitative interviews, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation with 20 experts, and pilot testing, resulting in a 30-item preliminary questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to 252 postoperative CRC patients, and 250 valid questionnaires were included in the psychometric analysis. Item analysis, content-validity assessment, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and reliability testing were conducted. Results: Three items (K6, N7, and N9) were removed after exploratory factor analysis (EFA), resulting in the final 27-item PCRC-TDQ comprising 19 knowledge items and eight needs items. The PCRC-TDQ contained two conceptual domains (TCM dietary knowledge and dietary needs), with four underlying factors identified within these domains, explaining 51.43% of the total variance. Item-level content validity indices ranged from 0.88 to 1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.990. Cronbach's alpha was 0.899 for the total instrument, 0.913 for the knowledge domain, and 0.849 for the needs domain. Conclusion: The 27-item PCRC-TDQ demonstrated satisfactory preliminary content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability in the study sample. It may serve as a preliminary assessment tool during initial postoperative dietary consultations to identify TCM dietary knowledge gaps and educational needs. Independent structural validation, including confirmatory factor analysis in separate cohorts, and multicenter validation are required before routine clinical implementation.
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.