ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2022
Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck Module in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 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.
- Network-derived symptom architecture and simulated leverage points during radiotherapy for oral cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Network analysis of head and neck symptoms and fear of cancer recurrence in postoperative laryngeal cancer patients: simulation-based intervention modeling.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Dynamic changes in symptom clusters and their influencing factors in oral cancer patients throughout the treatment cycle: a longitudinal study based on principal component analysis and linear mixed-effects modeling.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial pharyngeal squamous cell neoplasms: a single-center study in China.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Examining patient-reported late toxicity and its association with quality of life and unmet need for symptom management among nasopharyngeal cancer survivors: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck Module (MDASI-HN-C) has been linguistically validated. However, its psychometric properties have not been established yet. The purpose of the study was to psychometrically validate the MDASI-HN-C in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: 130 Chinese NPC patients who were undergoing radiotherapy (RT) participated in this cross-sectional study. The content, convergent, and construct validity of the MDASI-HN-C were examined. The reliability of the instrument was tested by examining the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Results: Cronbach's α coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91 for the three subscales of the MDASI-HN-C. The 3-day test-retest reliability was acceptable with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.52 to 0.71. The scale content validity index (S-CVI) was satisfactory (0.97). Subscale scores of the MDASI-HN-C were negatively correlated with the total score of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale (FACT-H&N-C) as hypothesized ( Conclusions: The MDASI-HN-C shows desirable psychometric properties for evaluating symptom burden in NPC patients, which can be used in both clinical and research contexts.
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.