Trial reportPeerJ2023
Psychometric validation of the Ostomy Skin Tool 2.0.
Trial report in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and psychometric testing of the urostomy peristomal skin symptom questionnaire.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Prospective Multicenter Study to Clarify the Frequency of Peristomal Skin Disorders and Appropriate Evaluation Time in Patients With Malignant Rectal Tumors.Annals of surgery · 2026Observational
- Identification of Peristomal Skin Alterations Using Convolutional Artificial Neural Networks.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Association of chemotherapy and stoma features with peristomal skin disorders in rectal cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Digital Leakage Notification System (Heylo™) for People with Ileostomies or Colostomies in the United Kingdom.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The Prevalence of Leakage, Peristomal Skin Complications and Impact on Quality of Life in the First Year Following Stoma Surgery.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) pose a major challenge for people living with an ostomy. To avoid severe PSCs, it is important that people with an ostomy check their peristomal skin condition on a regular basis and seek professional help when needed. Aim: To validate a new ostomy skin tool (OST 2.0) that will make regular assessment of the peristomal skin easier. Methods: Seventy subjects participating in a clinical trial were eligible for the analysis and data used for the validation. Item-level correlation with anchors, inter-item correlations, convergent validity of domains, test-retest reliability, anchor- and distribution-based methods for assessment of meaningful change were all part of the psychometric validation of the tool. Results: A final tool was established including six patient reported outcome items and automatic assessment of the discolored peristomal area. Follow-up with cognitive debriefing interviews assured that the concepts were considered relevant for people with an ostomy. Conclusion: The OST 2.0 demonstrated evidence supporting its reliability and validity as an outcome measure to capture both visible and non-visible peristomal skin complications.
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.