ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2022
Development and validity of an educational folder for pulmonary tuberculosis sputum collection.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Welcoming couples into the Assisted Human Reproduction Program: developing educational technology based on the context.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedERRATUM.2023
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto develop and validate an educational folder for pulmonary tuberculosis sputum collection.
methoda methodological study, developed in four phases: project design, bibliographic survey, development, and content and appearance validity. For validity, the Content Validity Index greater than or equal to 0.80, the Kappa Coefficient and the Suitability Assessment of Materials were adopted.
resultsan educational folder was developed containing the recommended steps for quality sputum collection. It was validated by 19 expert judges in the first validity cycle, obtaining an overall Content Validity Index of 0.90, perfect agreement among judges, with a total Kappa of 0.83 and superior suitability.
conclusionthe material is valid, as it contains suitable, simple and attractive language, illustrations and layout, indicating perfect agreement and reliability. Thus, it has the potential to assist in carrying out the recommended steps for correct sputum collection and enable the correct diagnosis.
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.