ArticleCancer medicine2024
Psychometric validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial among endometrial cancer patients.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: effect on inflammatory factors and quality of life.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial among endometrial cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 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
objectiveTo evaluate a psychometric validation of the endometrial cancer subscales (EnCS) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial (FACT-EN) among patients with endometrial cancer.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university-based hospital in South Korea between April and October 2022. Participants completed a survey questionnaire that included the FACT-EN. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) and the reliability were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) under a two-way mixed model. Pearson's correlations were used to evaluate the validity. We also tested known-group validity.
resultsIn total, 240 patients with endometrial cancer participated in the survey. In EFA, we found EnCS included four domains. In CFA, four-factor solution model was good: CFI = 0.659; SRMR = 0.066, and RMSEA = 0.073. The mean (SD) of total score of FACT-EN was 122.84 (23.58). The floor and ceiling effects were 0.4% and 0.4%, respectively. Cronbach's α coefficients for the five scales of the EnCS ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. The ICC of EnCS was 0.76. The convergent and discriminant validity of EnCS was acceptable. In the group analysis, older age and lower ECOG performance scores were associated with higher EnCS scores. The stomach and vaginal domains in EnCS were higher in patients who had completed treatment for more than 1 year compared to those who were still undergoing treatment.
conclusionsFACT-EN has demonstrated its validity as an assessment tool with significant implications for capturing various symptoms in patients with endometrial cancer.
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.