ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2024
Development and validation of the treatment expectation scale for patients with liver cancer.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the Chinese Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale for Endoscopy: A Mixed-Methods Approach.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- Survival benefits of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based study.Archives of medical science : AMS · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Liver cancer is one of the most common tumors in the world. Patients with liver cancer usually face substantial physical, psychological, and social burdens, which has created a great demand and expectation to ease the burden in all aspects. This study aimed to develop and validate the Treatment Expectation Scale for patients with Liver Cancer (TES-LC). Material and methods: The study was conducted in three phases. In the first stage, we used literature reviews and semi-structured interviews to generate the items to be included in the questionnaire TES-LC (version 1). In the second stage, two rounds of the Delphi expert consultation method were used to modify the first version to form TES-LC (version 2). In the third stage, projects were selected through project analysis and exploratory factor analysis to create TES-LC (version 3); then version 3 was tested for reliability and validity to generate version 4. Results: The final version of the TES-LC contains 19 items in 5 dimensions: disease symptoms, practical needs, psychological state, emotional satisfaction, and social function. Five common factors were extracted through exploratory factor analysis, explaining 60.11% of the variance. In the validation factor analysis, the fitting effect of the five-factor model was satisfactory after modification. The TES-LC had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.911 for the total scale. Conclusions: The TES-LC developed in this study has good reliability and validity and can provide a standardized tool for measuring treatment expectancy in patients with liver cancer, which is of good clinical utility.
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.