Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32532770›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Protocol for the development and validation of a measure of persistent psychological and emotional distress in cardiac patients: the Cardiac Distress Inventory.

Alun Jackson, Michelle Rogerson, Michael Le Grande, David Thompson, Chantal Ski, Marlies Alvarenga, John Amerena, Rosemary Higgins, Michela Raciti, Barbara M Murphy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Understanding and addressing intimate partner violence: a comprehensive review.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Alun JacksonAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia alun.jackson@australianhearthealth.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9565-1399
Michelle RogersonAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michael Le GrandeAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David ThompsonAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chantal SkiAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Marlies AlvarengaSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Federation University Australia - Berwick Campus, Berwick, Victoria, Australia.
John AmerenaCardiac Services, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Rosemary HigginsAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michela RacitiAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Barbara M MurphyAustralian Centre for Heart Health, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin University · AUAustralian Centre for Heart Health · AUQueen's University Belfast · GBBarwon Health · AUFederation University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDistress is experienced by the majority of cardiac patients, yet no cardiac-specific measure of distress exists. The aim of this project is to develop and validate the Cardiac Distress Inventory (CDI). Using the CDI, health professionals will be able to identify key clusters of psychological, emotional and social concern to address with patients, postcardiac event. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An item pool will be generated through: identification of items by a multidisciplinary group of clinician researchers; review of generic and condition-specific distress measures; focus group testing with cardiac rehabilitation professionals; feedback from patients. The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) criteria will be used to inform the development of the methodology for determining the CDI's psychometric properties. The item pool will be tested with 400 cardiac patients and responses subjected to exploratory factor analysis, Rasch analysis, construct validity testing and latent class analysis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis will be used to identify the optimal CDI cut-off score for distinguishing whether a person experiences clinically significant distress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the Monash Health Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number-RES-19-0000631L-559790). The CDI will be made available to clinicians and researchers without charge. The CDI will be translated for use internationally. Study findings will be shared with cardiac patient support groups; academic and medical communities via publications and presentations; in the training of cardiac secondary prevention professionals; and in reports to funders. Authorship for publications will follow the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.

Indexed as

Psychological DistressCardiovascular DiseasesConsensusEmotionsHumansPsychometricsResearch DesignValidation Studies as Topicadult cardiologycardiologymental healthprotocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID32532770
PMCPMC7295398
OpenAlexW3034277653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.