ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2024
Development and validation of a brief diabetic foot risk screening scale for diabetic patients.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a concise screening tool for diabetic foot risk assessment in patients with diabetes, and rigorously evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods: 390 adults diagnosed with diabetes were selected for a study in Changsha, China. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, initial items were developed by amalgamating existing diabetic foot risk screening tools and group discussions. Additionally, diabetic foot experts established content validity during this phase. In the second phase, the validity and reliability of the developed items were evaluated through various methods such as item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, ROC curve and AUC. Results: The Brief Diabetic Foot Risk Screening Scale consists of 6 dimensions and 19 items. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the scale, revealing six principal factors that accounted for 74.139 % of the total variance. The I-CVI was greater than 0.8, indicating good content validity, while the S-CVI was 0.737. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit well. The scale's Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.770, indicating good internal consistency, and its test-retest reliability was 0.958. The AUC suggests that the Brief Diabetic Foot Risk Screening Scale is an effective measure for identifying diabetic foot. Conclusion: The Scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing foot risk.
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.