Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31463231›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019

Content validity of the newly developed risk assessment tool for religious mass gathering events in an Indian setting (Mass Gathering Risk Assessment Tool-MGRAT).

Upasana Sharma, B R Desikachari, Sankara Sarma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Risk Assessment Tools for Mass Gatherings: a Narrative Review.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mass Gathering Medicine in Soccer Leagues: A Review and Creation of the SALEM Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
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.

Upasana SharmaAMCHSS (Achutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies), Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
B R DesikachariEx-Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sankara SarmaAMCHSS (Achutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies), Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk assessment (RA) for mass gathering events is crucial to identify potential health hazards. It aids in planning and response activities specific to the event but is often overlooked by the event organizers. This paper reports the content validity process of a newly developed tool called Mass Gathering Risk Assessment Tool (MGRAT), which intends to assess the risks associated with religious mass gathering events in Indian settings.

methodsQualitative approach was followed to identify the risks associated with mass gathering events and to identify the domains and items to be included in the RA tool. The draft tool was shared with six experts who were selected by the convenient method; selected experts were requested to assess the tool and give their comments about the domains, items, relevant responses, and overall presentation of the tool using content validity questionnaire. Content validity index and Fleiss kappa statistics were calculated to assess the agreement between multiple raters.

resultsAgreement proportion expressed as scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) calculated by the averaging method is 0.92. S-CVI; calculated by universal agreement is 0.78. Fleiss kappa statistics to measure the agreement between multiple experts after adjusting the component of the chance agreement is 0.522 (95% CI: 0.417, 0.628,

conclusionMGRAT is a valid tool, which has an appropriate level of content validity. As the number of raters increases, there will be difficulty in achieving consensus among all the items, which is the reason for lower Content Validity Index/Universal Average (CVI/UA) when compared with Content Validity Index/Average (CVI/Ave). Fleiss kappa statistics also indicated moderate agreement among the raters beyond the chance agreement, which also supports the appropriate content validity of MGRAT.

Indexed as

Content validityhealth risksmass gatheringreligious eventsrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID31463231
PMCPMC6691416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.