ArticleSaudi medical journal2018
Development of an oral anticoagulant-use attitude scale, and assessment of its validity and reliability.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2018. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a reliable scale that can measure the attitudes of individuals using oral anticoagulant drugs (OACs). Methods: This methodological study was conducted with 296 followed-up individuals using OACs for at least 6 months and visiting the cardiology and neurology clinics of a hospital in Turkey during 2017. A 20-item pool was used to construct the scale and all items were found suitable after content validity analysis and preliminary testing. Construct validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Results: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of the scale (0.79) and results of Bartlett's test showed that the sample size was suitable for factor analysis (p less than 0.001). The total Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.83. Factor analysis to assess construct-content validity of the scale identified 4 factors (variance, 54%). Using a path diagram in CFA, Chi-square/df ratio values was calculated at 2.807, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) at 0.093, comparative fit index (CFI) at 0.879, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) at 0.078. Conclusions: We found that the OACAs we developed had high reliability and validity.
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.