ArticleBMJ open2023
Internal structure validity and internal consistency reliability of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06923514 (Using Machine Learning to Analyze the Prediction and Correlation of Health Literacy, Stress and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients), which is not on this 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.
Using Machine Learning to Analyze the Prediction and Correlation of Health Literacy, Stress and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most used tools to measure health-related quality of life in heart failure. Despite extensive use in research, evidence on the MLHFQ's internal structure validity remains heterogeneous and inconclusive. There are no known reviews that systematically summarise the evidence related to the MLHFQ's factor structure (internal structure validity). This gap highlights a need to critically appraise, summarise and compare the available evidence on the internal structure and internal consistency reliability (ICR) of the MLHFQ. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will adhere to the reporting guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We will systematically search eleven electronic databases/search engines (Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Global Health, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Scopus, Journals, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dissertation and Theses Global) for quantitative studies assessing the MLHFQ's factor structure and ICR. Two reviewers will then independently screen studies for eligibility and assess the quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments checklist. Throughout the review, discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or by the involvement of the third reviewer. We will analyse and present results using descriptive statistics (frequencies, proportions and ranges) and narrative synthesis. We will include all the relevant studies published within the timeframe covered by the database. We carried out the preliminary search in November 2022 except for Dissertation and Theses Global which was searched in September 2023; however, we will update the entire search right before the review completion in January 2024. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no primary data is being collected from individuals. We intend to share the findings of the review at international conferences and publish manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023346919.
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.