ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Content Validity and Reliability of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test and the Knowledge Level of Portuguese Nurses at Long-Term Care Units: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting wound healing outcomes: a comparative accuracy analysis of AI-driven indices and percent area reduction.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Knowledge attitude and practice regarding cancer screening among Chinese medical students.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Knowledge in the Area of Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries Among Nurses: Report from the Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Relationship between Nursing Practice Environment and Pressure Ulcer Care Quality in Portugal's Long-Term Care Units.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Students' knowledge, attitude and practices towards pressure ulcer prevention and management.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Improvement in pressure ulcer care depends both on the dissemination of knowledge and its implementation. This study aims to translate the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test into Portuguese from Portugal and evaluate the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The second aim is to assess nurses' pressure ulcer knowledge level. (2) Methods: The Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test was translated into Portuguese, and the translated test's internal consistency and content validity were assessed. Further, the authors conducted a cross-sectional survey using the test among 221 nurses working in long-term care units. (3) Results: The Cronbach's alpha internal coefficient of reliability recorded for the 47 items was 0.738, which is higher than the minimum acceptable level of 0.7. The Cronbach's alpha for the subscales was 0.709 for prevention/risk and less than 0.5 for staging and wound description. Only two of the 221 nurses achieved a score of 90% correct answers or more. The nurses scored lower in questions related to prevention/risk (Me = 67.4%, IQR = 60.6-75.8% vs. staging: ME = 85.7%, IQR = 71.4-85.7%, description: ME = 85.7%, IQR = 71.4-85.7%,
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.