ArticleScientific reports2024
Validity of OSDI-6 questionnaire in a Chinese adult population.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Religious Moderation Dataset of Senior High School Students in Indonesia.Journal of open psychology data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Chinese translation version of OSDI-6 (C-OSDI-6) using a virtual set-up questionnaire for dry eye disease. A total of 270 participants (136 males, 50.4% and 134 females, 49.6%) with a mean age of 28.22 ± 9.01 years were assessed, diagnosed under the criteria put forth by Dry Eye Workshop completed the Chinese translated version of the OSDI-12 questionnaire (C-OSDI-12). Validity and psychometric properties were analyzed using the study data on the selected items (a new approach called virtual validation). The six items were extracted from the C-OSDI-12 as suggested by the authors of OSDI-6 and compared. The total scores of C-OSDI-12 and C-OSDI-6 were 30.27 ± 13.19 and 6.95 ± 3.53, respectively. Significant reliability was found between the total C-OSDI-6 score and the total C-OSDI-12 score (r = 0.865, p < 0.001). Infits and outfits of the C-OSDI-6 were between 1.26 and 0.78.The C-OSDI-6 proved valid and psychometrically responsive in Chinese adult dry eye participants. The findings of this virtual validation study need to be confirmed in a longitudinal validation study on real-world use.
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.