Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25475735›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015

Validation study of the EORTC information questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO25) in Iranian cancer patients.

Mohsen Asadi-Lari, Mahin Ahmadi Pishkuhi, Amir Almasi-Hashiani, Saeid Safiri, Mahdi Sepidarkish

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Tehran Survey of Potential Risk Factors for Multiple Births.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mohsen Asadi-LariDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of public health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahin Ahmadi Pishkuhi
Amir Almasi-Hashiani
Saeid Safiri
Mahdi Sepidarkish

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDeveloping a tool for measuring patient's needs is a vital step in the process of cancer treatment and research. In recent years, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) made a questionnaire to measure cancer patients' received information. Since validity and reliability of any instrument should be evaluated in the new environment and culture, the aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 in Iranian cancer patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred seventy-three patients with different stages of cancer filled questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Twenty-five patients answered the questionnaire twice at an interval of 2 weeks. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbach's alpha, interclass correlation, test retest, inter-rater agreement (IRA), and exploratory factorial analyses.

resultsUsing a conservative approach, the IRA for the overall relevancy and clarity of the tool was 87/86% and 83.33%, respectively. Overall appropriateness and clarity were 94.13 and 91.87%, respectively. Overall integrity of the instrument was determined to be 85%. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all domains and total inventory were top 70 and 90%, respectively. Interclass correlation index ranges between 0.708 and 0.965. Exploratory factorial analyses demonstrate six fields suitable for instrument. Correlation between areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC in-Patsat32 represents the convergent validity of the questionnaire. Also, results show a standard divergent validity in all domains of the questionnaire (Rho <0.3). Low correlation between the areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC QLQ-C30 (<0.3) demonstrates the divergence validity of the questionnaire.

conclusionThe results showed that Persian version of the questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25 is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the perception of information in cancer patients.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.