SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023
Assessment tools for stigma in breast cancer patients based on COSMIN guidelines: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the breast cancer stigma assessment scale among Chinese patients.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the measurement properties and methodological quality of stigma assessment tools designed for breast cancer patients. The aim was to provide clinical medical staff with a foundation for selecting high-quality assessment tools.
methodsA comprehensive computer search was carried out across various databases, including SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database(VIP), Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus, which were searched from the inception of the databases until March 20, 2023. Literature screening and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers, adhering to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The assessment tools were evaluated using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) systematic evaluation guidelines.
resultsIn the final analysis, a total of 9 assessment tools were included. However, none of these tools addressed measurement error, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness. Following the COSMIN guidelines, BCSS and CSPDS were assigned to Class A recommendations, while the remaining tools received Class B recommendations.
conclusionThe BCSS and CSPDS scales demonstrated comprehensive assessment in terms of their measurement characteristics, exhibiting good methodological quality, measurement attribute quality, and supporting evidence. Therefore, it is recommended to utilize these scales for evaluating breast cancer stigma. However, further validation is required for the remaining assessment tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38150049What 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.