ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2023
The APISS Questionnaire: A New Tool to Assess the Epidemiology of Systemic Allergic Reactions to Bee Venom in Beekeepers.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fifteen Years of Health-and-Environment Research in Slovenia.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2026Article
- Diagnostics and monitoring in Hymenoptera venom allergy: current and future perspectives.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Epidemiology and Risk Factor Analysis of Systemic Allergic Reaction to Bee Venom in the Slovenian Population of Beekeepers.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Associated with Severe Systemic Allergic Reaction after Wasp Sting in Subjects with a History of European Hornet Sting Allergy.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2024Article
- Content Validity and Cognitive Testing in the Development of a Motivational Interviewing Self-Assessment Questionnaire.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2024Article
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
Aim: To develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to be used as an instrument in cross-sectional studies among beekeepers. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire in Slovenian was validated by an expert panel (n=13) for content relevance and a rater panel (n=14) for clarity and comprehensibility. The content validity indices (an item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index based on the average and universal agreement method) and item-level face validity index were calculated in accordance with the recommended number of both the review panels with their implications on the acceptable cut-off scores. Piloting was performed in a sample (n=50) of the target population (N=1.080) using telephone interviews. Results: The item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index based on the average method exhibited excellent content validity (0.97), while the scale-level content validity index based on the universal agreement method reached a value of 0.72. The item-level face validity index of 1.00 indicated that all items were clear and comprehensive. Conclusions: The new instrument may be considered valid and feasible for use in nationwide population-based studies among Slovenian beekeepers and eventually in other populations.
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.