ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2020
Assessing sexual and reproductive health dimensions tools in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus with regard to Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments checklist.
Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of health and self-management in diabetes questionnaire (HASMID-10) into Brazilian Portuguese.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A valid tool is of paramount importance in determining women's sexual and reproductive health status, meeting their health needs, and recognizing the effectiveness of some interventions. This review study aimed to assess sexual and reproductive health dimensions tools in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus with regard to Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. In this review study, in addition to Iranian databases (MagIran, Sid, Irandoc), non-Iranian databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine were considered. The mentioned databases were searched for articles in English and Persian published within 2000-2019, using the search strategy for each database and Boolean operators along with appropriate keywords according to the MESH term. Articles with nonresearcher-made tools measuring the sexual and reproductive health concepts and dimensions were included in the present study. Afterward, the psychometric properties of the tools were assessed according to the COSMIN checklist. In the selected articles, there were 14 psychometrically valid tools to be assessed from 151 articles containing the sexual and reproductive health dimensions; among which, seven tools were evaluated with regard to COSMIN. None of the tools also had all the features noted in COSMIN. Moreover, all the concerned scales were not interpretable and accountable; however, a majority of them had internal consistency and construct validity. In this study, there was no valid and specific tool for measuring sexual-reproductive health status in this population group. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a valid tool according to the dimensions and needs of specific reproductive health in type 1 diabetes.
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.