Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26957984›Full record

SynthesisAfrican health sciences2015

A systematic review and appraisal of methods of developing and validating lifestyle cardiovascular disease risk factors questionnaires.

Odunaiya Nse, Louw Quinette, Ogah Okechukwu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in African health sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Odunaiya NseDivision of Physiotherapy, Stellenbosch University, RSA; Department of Physiotherapy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Louw QuinetteDivision of Physiotherapy, Stellenbosch University, RSA.
Ogah OkechukwuDepartment of Internal medicine, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWell developed and validated lifestyle cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors questionnaires is the key to obtaining accurate information to enable planning of CVD prevention program which is a necessity in developing countries. We conducted this review to assess methods and processes used for development and content validation of lifestyle CVD risk factors questionnaires and possibly develop an evidence based guideline for development and content validation of lifestyle CVD risk factors questionnaires. MATERIALS/

methodsRelevant databases at the Stellenbosch University library were searched for studies conducted between 2008 and 2012, in English language and among humans. Using the following databases; pubmed, cinahl, psyc info and proquest. Search terms used were CVD risk factors, questionnaires, smoking, alcohol, physical activity and diet.

resultsMethods identified for development of lifestyle CVD risk factors were; review of literature either systematic or traditional, involvement of expert and /or target population using focus group discussion/interview, clinical experience of authors and deductive reasoning of authors. For validation, methods used were; the involvement of expert panel, the use of target population and factor analysis.

conclusionCombination of methods produces questionnaires with good content validity and other psychometric properties which we consider good.

Indexed as

Life StyleCardiovascular DiseasesDietExerciseHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificitySmokingSmoking PreventionSurveys and Questionnaireslifestyle cardiovascular diseaserisk factors questionnairessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26957984
PMCPMC4765453

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.