ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2022
Translation and validation to Portuguese of a 60-item questionnaire to evaluate theoretical knowledge in fundus examination.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo translate and validate a questionnaire that evaluates the theoretical knowledge regarding fundus examination.
methodsA 60-item multiple-choice English questionnaire that investigates various aspects of knowledge regarding fundus examination was translated into Portuguese. The process involved translation, back-translation, and evaluation by an expert committee. The resulting questionnaire was applied to final-year medical students and ophthalmology residents. Each included subject answered the questionnaire twice, with an interval of one week between each application. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and percentage agreement were calculated.
resultsThirty participants were included (25 medical students and 5 ophthalmology residents). The pass-fail cutoff was calculated at 46, the theoretical false positives were 8.7% and the theoretical false negatives were 2.8%. The observed false positive and false negative rates were 0%. Among the 60 items, test-retest reliability was strong in 17 items, which one had a negative correlation, moderate in 14 items, which one had a negative correlation, and weak in 29 items; inter-rater reliability of 34 items was under 0.4, 17 items were between 0.4 and 0.6, and 8 items were above 0.6. One item had a negative kappa. Among the percent agreement, 10 items were between 40%-60% agreement, 50 were above 60% agreement, and 18 were above 80%. Cronbach's alpha was calculated as 0.674.
conclusionsThe translated questionnaire provided a standard instrument for future research and interventions to improve medical education in ophthalmology.
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.