ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2023
Construction and validity of an educational video to prevent immunization errors.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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.
- Construction and validity of an educational video on rapid HIV testing for young black people.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto construct and validate an orientation video, based on a low-fidelity clinical simulation scenario, to prevent immunization errors.
methodsa methodological study with video construction, validated in two stages by different audiences. Content was selected based on a realistic simulation scenario of the vaccine administration process to a patient-actor. Items with concordance greater than 0.8 and 0.6 were considered valid, verified using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), respectively.
resultsjudges' CVI had an average of 97.5%, and CVR, 0.9, and health professionals' CVI, 95.4%, and CVR, 0.8. Successes in administering vaccines were addressed, such as careful reading of labels, double-checking the vaccine, distractions/interruptions and error reporting.
conclusionsthe video was constructed and validated in terms of content, and can be used in training professionals working in vaccination.
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.