ArticleNursing open2023
Refining and psychometric evaluation of the falling risk assessment tool in ophthalmology inpatients.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of different fall risk screening tools for risk prediction of ophthalmology inpatients.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Refining and psychometric evaluation of the falling risk assessment tool in ophthalmology inpatients.Nursing open · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to refine the Falling Risk Assessment Tool in Ophthalmology Inpatients (FRAT) and assess its psychometric properties.
designA cross-sectional design was used.
methodsA convenience sample of 730 patients in the ophthalmology department was recruited in a level A tertiary hospital in Guangdong Province from July 2021 to January 2022. Data were analysed using item analysis, interrater reliability, content validation, internal consistency reliability and exploratory factor analysis.
resultsFive factors were extracted, accounting for 63.039% of the variance. The interrater reliability of the tool was 0.97. Cronbach's α was 0.658. The I-CVI was 0.75-1.00, the S-CVI/UA was 0.95 and the adjusted mean values of Kappa for indicators ranged from 0.72 to 1.00, as evaluated by the expert group. The FRAT showed satisfactory reliability and validity, and can be used to measure the fall risk assessment in ophthalmology inpatients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: After explaining the purpose, the patients received our fall risk assessment and answered the corresponding questionnaire questions.
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.