ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Swedish translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the pressure ulcer knowledge assessment tool for use in the operating room.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing Pressure Ulcers in the Operating Room: A National Survey of Operating Room Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Updated Version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT 2.0).International wound journal · 2026Article
- Swedish translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the pressure ulcer knowledge assessment tool for use in the operating room.International wound journal · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to psychometrically evaluate the Swedish operating room version of PUKAT 2.0. In total, 284 Swedish operating room nurses completed the survey of whom 50 completed the retest. The item difficulty P-value of 14 items ranged between 0.38 and 0.96 (median 0.65). Three items were found to be too easy (0.90-0.96). The D-value of 14 items ranged between 0.00 and 0.42 (median 0.46). Three items had a D-value lower than 0.20 (0.11-0.16) and eight items scored higher than 0.40 (0.45-0.61). The quality of the response alternatives (a-value) ranged between 0.00 and 0.42. This showed that nurses with a master's degree had a higher knowledge than nurses with a professional degree (respectively 9.4/14 versus 8.6/14; t = -2.4, df = 199, P = 0.02). The ICC was 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.78). The ICCs for the domains varied from 0.12 (95% CI = -0.16-0.39) to 0.59 (95% CI = 0.38-0.75). Results indicated that 11 of the original items contributed to the overall validity. However, the low participation in the test-retest made the reliability of the instrument low. An extended evaluation with a larger sample should be considered in order to confirm aspects of the psychometric properties of this instrument.
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.