ArticleBMC public health2024
The best internal structure of the Diabetes Quality of Life Measure (DQOL) in Brazilian patients.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes Mellitus (DM) is considered a chronic disease with numerous secondary complications that negatively affect the quality of life of patients. However, the specific, known and validated instruments for Brazilian Portuguese are too extensive, which often makes their use infeasible.
objectiveTo validate the internal structure of the Brazilian version of the Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) measure. METHODOLOGY: Patients with DM type 1 or 2, between the ages of 18 and 76, were evaluated between April 2022 and May 2022. The survey was conducted online using the Google Forms platform. The original DQOL contains 46 multiple-choice questions organized into four domains. For structural validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using RStudio software (Boston, MA, USA) with the packages lavaan and semPlot.
resultsA total of 354 subjects were evaluated. The 3-domain, 24-item version of the DQOL was the most adequate, with acceptable values for all fit indices (chi-square/GL < 3, TLI and CFI > 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08).
conclusionThe structure with three domains and 24 items is the most appropriate based on factor analysis. The Brazilian version of the DQOL with a structure of 3 domains and 24 items has adequate measurement properties that support its use in the clinical and scientific context in patients with DM.
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.