ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Development and psychometric evaluation of a pneumatic tourniquet work standards scale.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Integrated system combining cerebral protection and active steering directional puncture for thoracic aortic in situ fenestration.JVS-vascular science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePneumatic tourniquets are among the most essential equipment for controlling bleeding in orthopedic surgeries. However, incorrect application of pneumatic tourniquets is accompanied by many hazards and complications for patients. Evaluation of surgical teams' use of pneumatic tourniquets and establishment of protocols can play an important role in improving patient safety, minimizing risks, and increasing the lifetime of this equipment. Accordingly, the present study was conducted to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a pneumatic tourniquet work standards scale.
methodsThe present study is a methodological work carried out in two stages. In the first stage, an initial version of the scale was developed based on existing research and panel reviews. In the second stage, the psychometric properties of the scale were tested in terms of face validity (measured qualitatively and quantitatively), content validity (measured qualitatively and quantitatively), item analysis, construct validity, and reliability (internal consistency and stability).
resultsThe initial version of the scale consisted of 91 items. After several meetings of the research team, the number of items decreased to 81. In the course of face and content validity testing, 40 items were eliminated, leaving 41 items on the scale when it entered the construct validity testing stage. For evaluation of construct validity, a sample of 300 operating room nurses was recruited. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results showed a structure supported by seven factors and 41 items. The reliability of the scale was confirmed by internal consistency analysis, with a good Cronbach's alpha (0.85), and test-retest analysis, with good values of ICC (0.95).
conclusionThe present instrument is a reliable and valid scale which fills the gap in assessment of surgical team members' use of pneumatic tourniquets. The developed scale can be employed by researchers and managers of medical centers to identify hazards in applying pneumatic tourniquets and devise educational programs to eliminate or reduce the existing issues.
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.