Trial reportPloS one2022
Wound specific quality of life after blast or gunshot injury: Validation of the wound QoL instrument.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Microbiological challenges in the treatment of war injuries].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- The Impact of Underlying Conditions on Quality-of-Life Measurement Among Patients with Chronic Wounds, as Measured by Utility Values: A Review with an Additional Study.Advances in wound care · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute blast or gunshot wounds have a negative effect on the patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL). No validated instrument exists to assess the HRQoL of patients with such wounds. Therefore, we aimed to test and validate a subscale of an existing HRQoL instrument among patients with acute blast or gunshot wounds.
methodsWe used data from a randomized controlled trial comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard treatment of civilian adults with acute extremity blast or gunshot wounds. We evaluated the reliability (internal consistency, stability) and validity of the body subscale of the Wound QoL instrument using the World Health Organisation 20 question self-reporting questionnaire as gold standard.
resultsA total of 152 participants were included in the study. The participants were predominantly (93.4%) male, and median age was 29.0 years (IQR 21.0-34.0). The internal consistency was acceptable while a test-retest analysis indicated instability in the Wound QoL instrument. The content validity of the instrument was considered satisfactory; however, the criterion validity was found to be insufficient.
conclusionsOur results indicate that Wound QoL is a promising instrument for the assessment of wound specific HRQoL among patients with acute blast or gunshot wounds. Further testing and validation is needed.
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.