ArticleNursing open2023
Validation of the Chinese version of the kidney transplant understanding tool in Chinese patients.
Article in Nursing open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the Healthcare-Seeking Intention Questionnaire in Patients with Diabetic High-Risk Foot.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Self-Management of Kidney Transplant Recipients Research: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Validation of the Chinese version of the kidney transplant understanding tool in Chinese patients.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Kidney transplant-related knowledge and influencing factors in Chinese kidney transplant candidates and recipients: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Kidney Transplant Understanding Tool (K-TUT) among patients in China.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsA convenience sample of 171 kidney transplant (KT) candidates and 272 KT recipients was recruited from two tertiary and Grade A hospitals in Hunan Province, China. The reliability was calculated by half-fold reliability, test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha. The validity was analysed by the content validity index.
resultsFor KT candidates, the Chinese version of K-TUT deleted items 4, 6, 7 and 8, Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.778, half-fold reliability values were 0.792, and test-retest reliability values were 0.902. For KT recipients, the tool deleted items 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.769, half-fold coefficient values were 0.701, and retest coefficient values were 0.888. The content validity index was 0.967.
conclusionsThe K-TUT is an acceptable and reliable measurement for evaluating the relevant knowledge of KT recipients and candidates. IMPACT: It is anticipated that this new tool will help the nursing staff to identify specific areas of deficiency that could be targeted in health education to improve the KT knowledge of patients.
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.