ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Validity and reliability of Chinese version of the new diabetic foot ulcer assessment scale.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity and reliability of Chinese version of the new diabetic foot ulcer assessment scale.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A specific assessment tool is urgently needed to guide effective wound care for diabetic foot ulcers. However, the tool has not been available in Chinese. We aimed to culturally translate and verify the validity and reliability of the new Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment Scale (DFUAS). The original scale was translated into Chinese according to the Brislin guidelines. Patients satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were recruited. Each of the included foot ulcers was evaluated independently by two wound care specialists using the new DFUAS and by the third wound care specialists at the same time using the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool according to per guidelines. 210 diabetic foot ulcers were included for data analysis. The S-CVI of the Chinese version of the DFUAS was 0.96, and the I-CVIs ranged from 0.89 to 0.98. The total Cronbach's Alpha of the scale was 0.709, and the corrected item-total correlation of the items ranged from 0.4 to 0.872. The DFUAS had high inter-observer reliability of 0.997, and there were weak, moderate, and strong correlations between each pair of the items. The Bland-Altman plots showed a good agreement between the scale and the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool. We concluded that the Chinese version of the DFUAS showed good validity and reliability and is a reliable instrument for the assessment of diabetic foot ulcers.
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.