ArticleNursing open2025
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the MISSCARE Survey OR for Chinese Operating Room Nurses: A Methodological and Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Nursing open, 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.
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
aimsTo adapt the MISSCARE Survey OR to the Chinese cultural context and evaluate its psychometric properties.
designA cross-sectional design.
methodsA total of 700 operating room nurses from six tertiary hospitals within a geographically defined urban area in China participated in this study. The MISSCARE Survey OR was translated into Chinese utilising the Brislin two-way translation method. The reliability was assessed through the internal consistency coefficient and split-half reliability and test-retest reliability. The validity was determined through the Delphi expert consultation method and factor analysis.
resultsThe average S-CVI of the Chinese version was 0.99. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that Part A of the scale extracted 5 common factors and 43 items, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 70.15%. Part B of the scale extracted 4 common factors and 18 items, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 75.89%. Furthermore, Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.96 and 0.94, Guttman's split-half coefficients were 0.97 and 0.95, and the test-retest reliability coefficient over a 30-day interval is 0.83 and 0.88 for Part A and Part B respectively. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Chinese MISSCARE Survey OR evaluates missed nursing care, identifies factors affecting surgical care quality, supports cross-cultural research, and informs strategies to optimise management, improve nursing quality, ensure patient safety, and guide future research and policy development.
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.