ArticleScientific reports2024
Psychometric evaluation of an adult post-COVID-19 symptom tool: a development and validation study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Arabic Version Post-COVID-19 Symptom Scale (PCSS-Ar) for Assessing Long COVID-19 Severity Among Arabic-Speaking Populations: A Factor Analysis and Rasch Analysis Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- A Step Forward in Long COVID Research: Validating the Post-COVID Cognitive Impairment Scale.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Article
- The Importance of Including Long COVID Outcomes When Developing Novel Treatments for Acute COVID-19.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was aimed to develop and validate an instrument for post-COVID-19 symptoms in adults. Data were collected from adults with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in Taiwan. We developed the initial instrument through systematic review and expert feedback. Its validity was tested using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and criterion-related validity, while its reliability was tested using Cronbach's alpha. In total, 310 adults participated in this study. Examination of the EFA clearly classified a five-factor model with 24 items (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.903; Bartlett's test of sphericity: X
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.