ArticleNursing open2023
Validation of publication pressure questionnaire-revised into Chinese nurses from a university hospital.
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.
- Latent Profiles of Publication Pressure Among Nurses and Associated Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2026Observational
- Validation of publication pressure questionnaire-revised into Chinese nurses from a university hospital.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo translate and validate the Publication Pressure Questionnaire-revised (PPQ-r) among the Chinese nurses.
designA cross-sectional descriptive study.
methodsThe classical forward/backward translation of the PPQ-r was conducted first, and then the psychometric values were tested using the data collected in September, 2021 among 924 Chinese nurses from a university hospital in China by calculating its content validity index, construct validity, both convergent and discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability following the COSMIN guidelines.
resultsThe proposed three-factor structure of original PPQ-r cannot be confirmed in present study. With exploratory factor analysis, a new two-factor structure with 9 items was extracted, accounting for 62.718% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated satisfactory goodness of all fit index values: χ PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participation of nurses in this study was limited to the data provided through participant survey.
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.