ArticleJournal of patient experience2021
Construct Validity of the Questionnaire Quality From the Patients Perspective Adapted for Surgical Prostate Cancer Patients.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical patient-reported experience measures and qualitative experience studies: systematic review.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Experience Measures after Radical Prostatectomy: A Register-Based Study Evaluating the Association between Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Information.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are important to capture the patients' voice. No such measure is routinely used for evaluation after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to adapt the short version of the PREM questionnaire quality from the patients' perspective (QPP), and assess the construct validity of this version. Quality from the patients' perspective assesses 4 dimensions of quality of care. Involving discussion with user representatives, the QPP short version was adapted by adding 7 context-specific questions based on items from the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice. This short version was answered on smartphone or tablet by 265 patients. We used exploratory factor analysis to assess dimensionality. For comparison with previous publications of the QPP, the analysis was repeated after mean imputation of missing values. The factor analysis identified 7 factors among the 30 analyzed items included in the analysis, explaining 64.9% of the variance. After imputation of missing, 2 factors explained 48.6% of the variance. None of these analysis captured the 4 dimensions of the QPP.
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.