ArticleARYA atherosclerosis2021
Validation of a newly developed questionnaire regarding clinical history in patients with breast and colorectal cancers.
Article in ARYA atherosclerosis, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supermarket health advocacy, resources, and education: feasibility of a supermarket-based prediabetes and diabetes screening and education program.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the close interaction between the specialties of cardiology and oncology is necessary for early detection of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in cancer patients. For the risk assessment of CVD in Breast and Colorectal Cancers (CIBC) study, in the current study we aimed to validate a questionnaire for the assessment of clinical history in patients with breast cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsWe determined the content validity of the questionnaire using the 2 indexes of content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) to examine the specificity, simplicity, clarity, and transparency of the items. Content validity assessment was performed through a panel of experts including 2 oncologists, 5 cardiologists, 2 general practitioners, and 1 epidemiologist. The reliability of the questionnaire was estimated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient in 50 patients. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine the reproducibility of the questionnaire during 1 week.
resultsThe CRC and breast cancer questionnaire were designed with 16 and 32 questions, respectively. To obtain acceptable CVR, 5 and 11 questions were removed from the CRC and breast cancer questionnaires, respectively. Cronbach's alpha was 0.70 in the breast cancer questionnaire and 0.94 in the CRC questionnaire. All questions had a CVI of higher than 80%. The ICC in the breast cancer questionnaire ranged between 0.71 and 0.96 and in CRC questionnaire ranged between 0.78 and 0.98.
conclusionThe validity and reliability of our newly developed questionnaire was desirable. The reliability of the breast cancer questions was acceptable and that of the CRC questions was excellent. Thus, thus questionnaire can be used in this group of patients regardless of whether the goal is cardiac care or not.
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.