ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Both subscales of the Keratoconus End-Points Assessment Questionnaire have excellent test-retest reliability.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Assessment of subjective functional and emotional compromise in Keratoconus patients: Significance, confounders, and future.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The keratoconus end-points assessment questionnaire (KEPAQ) is a disease-specific scale designed to evaluate the quality of life in keratoconus patients and provides the measurement of both functional and emotional compromise in keratoconus. It was previously developed, tested, and validated and now we want to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the KEPAQ, in an effort to contribute evidence on its internal consistency and capability of measuring clinical state with minimal inference of random chance. Methods: This is a prospective analytical study, designed to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the KEPAQ through the repeated application of the questionnaire to a group of clinically stable individuals. A number of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of keratoconus underwent double application of the KEPAQ, seven days apart. Mean KEPAQ score was obtained through Rasch analysis, while test-retest reliability was evaluated through Spearman rank-order correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient. Rasch analysis was performed in JMetrik version 4.1.1 (Psychomeasurement Systems LLC; Charlottesville, VA, USA) in a MacBook Air computer running macOS Catalina version 10.15.2 (Apple Inc.; Cupertino, CA, USA). Results: A total of 100 patients were included. For KEPAQ-E, Spearman correlation was R = 0.963 while ICC was 0.981 (95% confidence interval 0.972-0.987). For KEPAQ-F, Spearman correlation was R = 0.921 while ICC was 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.929-0.968). Conclusion: The KEPAQ is a robust, well-developed, extremely reliable scale which can be confidently used for clinical and research endeavors.
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.