ArticleBMC women's health2022
Psychometric performance of the Arabic versions of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast plus Arm morbidity (FACT-B + 4) in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema: cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking the Silence: Psychological Abuse Among Patients with Breast Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive axillary lymph node dissection versus conventional axillary lymph node dissection: a comparative study on short-term efficacy in breast cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Quality of life for patients on oncology treatments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Review
- Psychometric Properties and Factorial Analysis of the Arabic McGill-QoL Questionnaire in Breast Cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBurden of breast cancer it continues to increase largely because of the aging and growth of the world population and assessment of quality of life is an important outcome measure to facilitate and improved care among breast cancer survivors, the aim of this study was to evaluate evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Arabic version of the FACT-B + 4 questionnaire among participants with breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) in Saudi Arabia.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study, 51 participants with BCRL completed the Arabic version of FACT-B + 4. Internal consistency and test-retest-reliability were assessed using Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation-coefficient (ICC), and limits of agreement according to the Bland Altman method, respectively. The validation studies were carried-out by examining predefined hypotheses (n = 14) for both construct and Known-groups validity. To investigate the responsiveness, the Arabic version of FACT-B + 4 questionnaire was administrated preoperative and 4 weeks postoperatively among the participants with breast cancer (n = 34).
resultsThe Cronbach alpha of the Arabic FACT-B + 4 total score was 0.90 and for the different subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. Test-retest reliability for FACT-B + 4 total score and different subscales was found to be moderate to very strong (ICC 0.51-0.94). The Bland-Altman plot was adequate - 19.24 and 22.10 points. Measurement variability was acceptable for Arabic FACT-B + 4 and ARM subscale (standard error of measurement = 5.34, and 1.34). Moderate correlations (r = 0.42-0.62) were found between the subscale of the FACTB + 4 and the corresponding domains of SF-36. For known group validity, 72% (10 of 14) hypotheses on known group validity were accepted.
conclusionFACT-B + 4 has adequate psychometric properties, thus making it useful for assessing QOL quality of life in Arabic speaking women with BCRL.
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.