ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2024
Content validity of guidance on self-care in the post-operative period for breast cancer.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto validate the content of a guidance guide on self-care in the postoperative period of breast surgery for breast cancer.
methodsa methodological study with content validity, carried out with 15 expert nurses and physiotherapists, between May and July 2022. Recruitment took place from the Lattes Platform, using snowball sampling. The level of relevance and representativeness for each item was verified using the Content Validity Index (CVI). It was considered valid when CVI was equal to or greater than 78% (0.78).
resultsfrom the initial total of 37 items, two were excluded, as they had insufficient practical relevance and theoretical relevance, and another five items which, although presenting a CVI lower than the established cut-off, were suggested to be rewritten and grouped with other similar items.
conclusionsthirty items were considered valid and demonstrated important and significant characteristics, constituting suitable material for application in clinical practice.
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.