ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Concurrent validity testing of the patient perspective of arrhythmia questionnaire.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Suffering Pictogram for Brazilian cancer patients.Palliative & supportive care · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisease-specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used to evaluate not only a patient's view of their symptoms, functional status, and health related quality of life, but also clinical benefit of treatments. The Patient Perspective of Arrhythmia Questionnaire (PPAQ) was initially developed as a self-administered, disease-specific PROM for patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) assessing the impact of the arrhythmia and symptoms on patients' daily activities and physical, emotional, and social functioning. Preliminary evidence of content and construct validity has been previously demonstrated, but only in SVT patients in the U.S. and Poland. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the concurrent validity of the PPAQ in patients having a variety of arrhythmias and to explore whether differences in symptoms existed by gender. METHODOLOGY: In this cross-sectional study, adult cardiac arrhythmia outpatients from a tertiary care, academic medical center completed the 6-item PPAQ, the SF-12, a Fatigue Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Included were patients with atrial fibrillation (82.4%), ventricular tachycardia (15.7%), and atrial tachycardia (2%). Descriptive statistics and independent t-tests, pairwise comparisons with Pearson correlations, Goodman Kruskal gamma statistic for ordinal associations, Cronbach's alpha, and Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) were used to determine concurrent construct validity and internal consistency reliability.
resultsParticipants (n=51) had a mean age of 59.4 years (± 12.6), were majority male (66.7%) and Caucasian (75%). Preliminary evidence of concurrent construct validity was found based on moderate to strong correlations (range from 0.4 to 0.7) between the PPAQ and other validated measures, as well as strong internal reliability (KR-20 of 0.80 and Cronbach's alpha of 0.91). The most common symptoms reported were fatigue (60.8%) and heart fluttering (52.9%). Blurred vision (p<0.04), dizziness (p<0.01), and fatigue (p<0.04) were seen significantly more frequently in men compared to women.
conclusionsResults present additional evidence of the validity and reliability of the PPAQ. The PPAQ comprehensively measures the burden of the disease from cardiac arrhythmia patients' perspective. Validated, reliable, disease-specific PROMs are needed to direct personalized clinical decision-making.
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.