ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2021
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of brief diabetic foot ulceration risk checklist (BDURC).
methodsThis methodological study was conducted at the diabetes clinic of a state hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. The data were collected with the BDURC developed by Zhou et al. in 2018. A study was conducted with 430 patients with Type 2 diabetes. The scale was retested after 4 weeks by 60 participants. Language equivalence of the scale was provided. Experts' opinions were taken about the content validity of the scale. Reliability of the scale was determined with the test-retest reliability, item-total correlation, and internal consistency analysis.
resultsConfirmatory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with good model suitability. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale and its subscales was 0.79. Test-retest scores showed no statistically significant difference between the items (p>0.05). The reliability index was higher than 0.80.
conclusionThe BDURC-TR is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in clinics to identify the risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Turkey.
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.