ArticlePloS one2017
Rasch analysis of the hospital anxiety and depression scale among Chinese cataract patients.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A stacking ensemble machine learning model for predicting postoperative axial pain intensity in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Structural and functional abnormalities in the medial prefrontal cortex were associated with pain and depressive symptoms in patients with adhesive capsulitis.Pain reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of influencing factors of dry eyes after cataract surgery and construction of a prediction model.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in cancer patients.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- What Affects the Quality of Score Transformations? Potential Issues in True-Score Equating Using the Partial Credit Model.Educational and psychological measurement · 2023Article
- Article
- Psychometric Properties and Factor Structure of the Chinese Version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in People Living With HIV.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) among Chinese cataract population.
methodsA total of 275 participants with unilateral or bilateral cataract were recruited to complete the Chinese version of HADS. The patients' demographic and ophthalmic characteristics were documented. Rasch analysis was conducted to examine the model fit statistics, the thresholds ordering of the polytomous items, targeting, person separation index and reliability, local dependency, unidimentionality, differential item functioning (DIF) and construct validity of the HADS individual and summary measures.
resultsRasch analysis was performed on anxiety and depression subscales as well as HADS-Total score respectively. The items of original HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression and HADS-Total demonstrated evidence of misfit of the Rasch model. Removing items A7 for anxiety subscale and rescoring items D14 for depression subscale significantly improved Rasch model fit. A 12-item higher order total scale with further removal of D12 was found to fit the Rasch model. The modified items had ordered response thresholds. No uniform DIF was detected, whereas notable non-uniform DIF in high-ability group was found. The revised cut-off points were given for the modified anxiety and depression subscales.
conclusionThe modified version of HADS with HADS-A and HADS-D as subscale and HADS-T as a higher-order measure is a reliable and valid instrument that may be useful for assessing anxiety and depression states in Chinese cataract population.
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.