ArticleInternational wound journal2025
Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule-Validity, Reliability and Dimensionality of the Norwegian Version.
Article in International wound journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to test the validity, reliability and dimensionality of the Norwegian version of the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS), a measure for wound-specific health-related quality of life. The Norwegian CWIS and a 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) were completed by 204 patients with hard-to-heal wounds on the lower extremity. The questionnaires were filled in at three time points over 8-14 weeks (T0, T1, T2). The Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was completed at T1 and T2. Demographic and clinical data were collected at T0 and T2. The three-factor model of the CWIS showed an acceptable fit to the observed data, and the dimensionality was clear as long as two correlated error terms were accepted and four items were removed (χ
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.