ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2024
Development and content validation of a risk classification instrument.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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.
- Oral health reception and risk classification protocol: development and validation in a dental emergency service.Frontiers in health services · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDevelop and validate the content of an instrument for patient risk classification in emergency services of Primary Health Care.
methodThe study included two stages: item generation and content validity. A literature review and retrospective analysis of medical records were conducted to create the instrument items. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was used to assess agreement among judges during content validation.
resultsIn the first and second rounds, 75 and 71 judges validated the risk classification instrument, respectively. The minimum adherence score for the latent variable item based on the final number of judges was 0.22 and 0.18; thus, 52 items, divided into three classification categories (red, orange, and yellow), were retained.
conclusionThe instrument was considered valid regarding clarity, relevance, pertinence, and agreement regarding the severity indicated in the item.
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.