Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33451283›Full record

ArticleBMC anesthesiology2021

Evaluate construct validity of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire in gynecological postoperative patients using confirmatory factor analysis.

Sook Hui Chaw, Yoke Lin Lo, Jia Yin Lee, Jia Wing Wong, Wan Aizat Wan Zakaria, Shairil Rahayu Ruslan, Wei Keang Tan, Ina Ismiarti Shariffuddin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. French-Canadian translation of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Sook Hui ChawDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yoke Lin LoDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, International Medical University, No 126 Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Yokelinlo@imu.edu.my.ORCID 0000-0001-5521-2543
Jia Yin LeeDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, International Medical University, No 126 Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jia Wing WongDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, International Medical University, No 126 Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Wan Aizat Wan ZakariaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Shairil Rahayu RuslanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Wei Keang TanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ina Ismiarti ShariffuddinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

Institut Pengurusan dan Pemantauan Penyelidikan, Universiti Malaya BK031-2016International Medical University BP-I-01/14(38)2017 and BP-I-01/14(40)2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) evaluates the patient-reported quality of pain management in adults. A validated APS-POQ-R is pivotal to guide effective pain management with better patient satisfaction. Previous studies revealed that subscales of "patients' perception of pain management" were unstable cross-culturally. This study aims to evaluate the construct validity of the APS-POQ-R in gynecological postoperative patients with a multi-cultural background using confirmatory factor analysis to allow comparisons among different a priori models at the latent factor level.

methodsPatients aged 18 years old or above and who were scheduled for gynecology surgery were selected. Three different models with a combination of latent factors were based on a priori hypotheses from previous studies. The root-mean-squared error of approximation, comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, Chi-squared test, and change in Chi-squared statistic given a change in degrees of freedom between models were used to assess the model fit to the present data.

resultsA total of 302 patients completed the questionnaire. The five-factor model which was based on Gordon's study has an acceptable fit for the data and was superior when compared to the one-factor baseline model. Although the four-factor model, which originated from Botti's study, also demonstrates a good model fit, the "perception of care" construct was excluded in this model. The "perception of care" construct is conceptually important as patient-centered care has become the focus of quality improvement of pain service.

conclusionsThe APS-POQ-R is easy to administer and is useful for quality evaluation in postoperative pain management. The present study demonstrates that a five-factor structure of the APS-POQ-R is the best fitting model in our patient sample. The results of this study provide further evidence to support the use of APS-POQ-R as a measurement tool for pain management evaluation in acute postoperative patients with a multi-cultural background.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaCross-Sectional StudiesCultural DiversityFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMalaysiaMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain ManagementPatient SatisfactionPostoperative PainReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesConstruct validityFactor analysisPain managementPatient managementPostoperative pain

Identifiers

PMID33451283
PMCPMC7809867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.