ArticleSafety and health at work2021
Reliability and Validity of a Nationwide Survey (the Korean Radiation Workers Study).
Article in Safety and health at work, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Article
- The icope Intrinsic Capacity Screening Tool: Measurement Structure and Predictive Validity of Dependence and Hospitalization.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the self-administered questionnaire for Korean radiation workers.
methodsFrom May 24, 2016, to June 30, 2017, 20,608 participants completed the questionnaire, providing information on sociodemographics, lifestyle, work history and practices, medical radiation exposure, and medical history, which was linked to the National Dose Registry and the National Cancer Registry. The validity of the questionnaire was evaluated using the responses of 20,608 workers, and reliability was evaluated using the responses of 3043 workers who responded to the survey twice.
resultsResponses concerning demographic characteristics and lifestyle showed reliability with a moderate-to-high agreement (kappa: 0.43-0.99), whereas responses concerning occupation and medical radiation exposure had a wide range of agreement (kappa: 0.05-0.95), possibly owing to temporal variability during employment. Regarding validity, responses to the question about the first year of employment had an excellent agreement with the national registry (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9); however, responses on cancer history had a wide range of agreement (kappa: 0.22-0.85).
conclusionAlthough the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were not distinguished by demographic characteristics, they tended to be low among participants whose occupational radiation exposure was minimal. Overall, the information collected can be reliable for epidemiological studies; however, caution must be exercised when using information such as medical exposure and work practices, which are prone to temporal variability.
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.