ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2014
Testing the factorial validity of scores from the caregiver pain medicine questionnaire.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospice Family Caregiver Involvement in Care Plan Meetings: A Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2017Trial
- Pain in Hospice Patients With Dementia: The Informal Caregiver Experience.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextThe Caregiver Pain Medicine Questionnaire is designed to measure caregiver agreement with statements regarding pain management. However, little testing has been done to determine its reliability and validity.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to test the factorial validity of scores from the Caregiver Pain Medicine Questionnaire as hypothesized by the original study authors.
methodsConfirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess whether the subscales postulated by the instrument authors could be replicated in external data.
resultsFit statistics reveal an unsatisfactory fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data.
conclusionThe theoretical model hypothesized by the original study authors was not confirmed. Results lead us to conclude that the instrument is poor and should not be used. Further research is needed to define content domains and validate the items developed to assess them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.