ArticleMenopause (New York, N.Y.)2020
Comparative validity and reliability of the WeChat-based electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the PISQ-12 for collecting participant-reported data in Chinese.
Article in Menopause (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of activities of daily living using an electronic version of the Longshi Scale in patients with stroke: reliability, consistency, and preference.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Observational
- The Current Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of the Neglected Methodology of Web-Based Questionnaires Among Chinese Health Workers: Web-Based Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- High response rate and low cost of WeChat-based data collection of infant and young child feeding data in rural Qinghai Province, China.Journal of global health · 2022Article
- Comparison of the agreement between WeChat-based self-administered and interviewer-administered data on infant and young child feeding in China: A test-retest study.Journal of global health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the consistency between the WeChat-based Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form (PISQ-12) in Chinese and the paper version and to determine the test-retest reliability of the WeChat questionnaire.
methodsA total of 120 women aged between 24 and 69 years were recruited from the outpatient clinic at Peking Union Medical College Hospital and randomly assigned to two groups. All participants completed the WeChat and paper questionnaires twice. Group A completed the paper questionnaire before the WeChat version; Group B completed the WeChat questionnaire before the paper version. Two weeks later, all participants completed the questionnaires in the opposite order. Then, the reliability and validity of the two versions were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman graphs.
resultsNo significant difference in completion time was found between the two versions of the Chinese PISQ-12 (P = 0.67). Half of the participants (60/120) preferred the WeChat questionnaire, 15% (18/120) preferred the paper form (P < 0.01), and 35% had no preference (42/120). The response time was positively correlated with age (P < 0.01) and negatively correlated with the degree of education (P < 0.01). A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.92 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94 indicated strong consistency between the two versions. The WeChat form exhibited strong test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.86; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.86). The Bland-Altman plots supported these results.
conclusionsThe WeChat questionnaire was preferred over the paper version in a Chinese sample and had excellent consistency with the paper version and high test-retest reliability for collecting data on private topics.
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.