Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293817›Full record

Trial reportTherapeutics and clinical risk management2020

Development and Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-40 Questionnaire.

Yeyang Chen, Junfu Wang, Siyu Liu, Weikun Lai, Jinlu Liu, Zhen Wang, Bopei Li, Yuantian Mao, Ye Wang, Guofei Deng and 1 more

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors.

Yeyang Chen *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-7994-6899
Junfu Wang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Siyu LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Weikun LaiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Jinlu LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Zhen WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Bopei LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Yuantian MaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Ye WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Guofei DengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
Junqiang ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present study aimed to develop the official Chinese version of the QoR-40 (QoR-40C) and to test its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. PATIENTS AND

methodsA systematic translation procedure was established and performed to develop the QoR-40C from the original English QoR-40 version. After the pilot study, 223 surgical patients were administered  the QoR-40C at four time points. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness were assessed to validate the QoR-40C.

resultsThe test-retest reliability of the QoR-40C in the morning and afternoon of the third day after surgery was 0.917 (P < 0.001). The split-half reliability for all domains was 0.938 in the morning of the third day after surgery. The median item-to-own dimension and total score of Cronbach's α for internal consistency of the QoR-40C at different assessment time points were more than 0.70. All the correlation coefficients between each subscale and the QoR-40 total score showed good correlation and were greater than those for other subscales in the morning of the third day after surgery. Furthermore, in the morning of the third day after surgery, the QoR-40C total score was moderately positively correlated with the SF-36 score (

conclusionThe QoR-40C showed good reliability, validity, and responsiveness and was appropriate to be used as a quality of life measurement questionnaire for patients after surgery in China.

Indexed as

Chinaquality of lifequestionnairereliabilityresponsivenessvalidity

Identifiers

PMID33293817
PMCPMC7719329

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.