ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2020
Validation of the american quality assessment model and performance improvement to the brazilian transplant.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating potential organ and tissue donors in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic: Scoping review and recommendations construction.Enfermeria intensiva · 2021Article
- Validating potential organ and tissue donors in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic: Scoping review and recommendations construction.Enfermeria intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the quality assessment and performance improvement instrument of US transplant programs to the Brazilian reality.
methodMethodological study developed for semantic validation and cultural adaptation of the Quality assessment and Performance Improvement instrument in the following steps: 1) translation; 2) synthesis; 3) back translation; 4) review by expert committee; 5) pretest and 6) content validation. To evaluate the agreement between the five judges, the Kappa coefficient was used and for content validation, the content validation index.
resultsKappa coefficient showed the agreement of the judges for semantic, idiomatic, cultural and conceptual equivalences. Content validation index values for relevance and item sequence of at least 0.80 for all blocks.
conclusionThe instrument of Quality Evaluation and Performance Improvement of Transplantation Programs proved to be valid and reliable. This instrument will contribute to the development of quality assurance programs for transplant teams in Brazil.
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.