ArticleHeliyon2024
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the intensive care oral care frequency and assessment scale.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the Professional Interpersonal Competency Assessment Scale for novice nurses.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Translation and psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the Nurses' Work Value Scale: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Application of sugar-free cola solution based on the ICOCFAS score in oral care of non-artificial airway patients with severe neurological conditions.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to translate the Intensive Care Oral Care Frequency and Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate its reliability and validity in Chinese ICU patients. Methods: This study was conducted using a cross-sectional survey design in ICUs of three tertiary hospitals in Huai'an and Taizhou from October 2022 to April 2023. The Chinese version of the Intensive Care Oral Care Frequency and Assessment Scale (C-ICOCFAS) was developed by expert consultation and cultural adaptation according to the two-person verbatim translation-back translation criteria described in the Brislin model. Item analysis was conducted using correlation analysis, and validity analysis included content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Reliability analyses included Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Guttman split-half reliability, and interrater reliability. Results: The Chinese version of the scale consisted of one dimension and nine items, consistent with the original version. Exploratory factor analysis showed KMO = 0.891, and the cumulative variance contribution reached 65.534 %. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit, χ2/df = 2.124, NFI = 0.950, GFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.973, CFI = 0.973, SRMR = 0.037, and RMSEA = 0.073. The content validity of the scale was 0.97, and the content validity of the items ranged from 0.83 to 1.00; the criterion validity was 0.969; the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.919; the total item correlation coefficient was 0.725-0.831; the Guttman split-half reliability was 0.919; and the interrater reliability was 0.885. Conclusion: The C-ICOCFAS has good reliability and validity and can effectively guide nurses in the frequency of oral care for ICU patients. Implications for clinical practice: This tool can significantly improve the level of oral care among ICU patients and further promote the health and safety of patients. These findings can help clinical nursing experts to better understand and master the use of scales and standards to improve nursing.
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.