ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Development and validation of a multidisciplinary educational booklet for kidney transplant recipients.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto develop and validate the content of a multidisciplinary booklet for patients who have undergone kidney transplantation.
methodsthis methodological study was conducted in five stages: 1) literature review; 2) identification and organization of domains; 3) content validation; 4) formatting of the booklet; and 5) evaluation by the target audience. Content validity was analyzed using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and modified Kappa. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was also calculated to assess relevance.
resultsthe booklet was validated after four rounds of evaluation by a panel of experts, achieving a global average of CVI = 0.98, modified Kappa = 0.97, and CVR = 0.77. The target audience evaluation reached a 99.7% agreement rate.
conclusionsthe developed booklet demonstrated evidence of content validity, being clear, engaging, and informative, making it suitable for use by both professionals and the target audience.
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.