ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and preliminary validation of a PROS scale for Chinese bladder cancer patients with abdominal stoma.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latent profile analysis of health-related quality of life in patients with bladder cancer and abdominal wall stomas: a multicenter cross-sectional study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- 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
- Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of scales of knowledge, attitude, and practice of self-care for patients with arteriovenous fistula: a translation and verification study.Frontiers in public health · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bladder cancer is a common malignant tumor, and patients who have undergone radical cystectomy and urinary diversion require a lifelong abdominal stoma. This greatly affects their physiological, psychological, and social well-being. However, there is currently a lack of a self-assessment outcome scale specifically designed for bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas. Therefore, we developed and validated a self-assessment outcome scale (PROS-BCAS) for Chinese bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas. The scale was initially developed through literature research and expert consultation, and it comprised four dimensions: physiological, psychological, social, and treatment, with a total of 66 items. After item analysis, 44 items were retained. We collected scale data from 382 patients to examine its validity and reliability. The results showed that the PROS-BCAS scale had good content validity (S-CVI/Ave = 0.992), construct validity (KMO > 0.6), and discriminant validity (correlation coefficient 0.404-0.870). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients (0.801-0.954), test-retest reliability (0.778-0.956), and split-half reliability (0.896-0.977) all demonstrated good internal consistency for each dimension and the overall scale. The study demonstrated that the PROS-BCAS scale is a reliable and valid tool for accurately assessing the health-related quality of life of bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas, providing reference for developing individualized clinical care plans.
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.