ArticlePEC innovation2023
Development and validation of the Chinese oral anticoagulants knowledge tool (C-OAKT): A pilot study.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
- Smart approach for international normalized ratio monitoring: Pakistan's perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate an oral anticoagulant knowledge tool for Chinese-speaking patients treated with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Hong Kong. Method: This pilot validation study consisted of the following three phases: (1) the development of a knowledge tool and content validity assessment; (2) a pilot study of 200 participants, consisting of 100 patients taking warfarin or DOACs, 50 pharmacists, and 50 members of the general public; and (3) known-group validity and reliability assessments. Results: A 19-item "Chinese Oral Anticoagulants Knowledge Tool (C-OAKT)" was developed with a scale content validity index of 0.95. The mean score for known-group validity was significantly higher in the pharmacist group than the patient groups, and the patient groups scored significantly higher than the general public (mean ± standard deviation [SD] = 90.00 ± 7.11 vs. 51.55 ± 17.49 vs. 19.0 ± 15.42, respectively; Conclusion: The results of the pilot validation study suggested that the C-OAKT is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing patients' knowledge of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory care settings. Innovations: This is the first validated Chinese version of an anticoagulant knowledge assessment tool. This tool will be utilized in public hospitals in Hong Kong, and will facilitate future research exploring the relationship between anticoagulant knowledge and patient-related outcomes.
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.