SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Measurement properties of Chinese-version assessment tools of health-related quality of life in patients with stroke: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
purposeTo systematically evaluate the measurement properties of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales for stroke and provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical and research use.
methodsTen databases (e.g., CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Embase) were searched from inception to September 2024. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of Chinese HRQOL scales for stroke patients were included. Two researchers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed measurement properties and methodological quality using COSMIN standards.
resultsThirty-seven studies were included, reporting on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and measurement error. Two tools demonstrated sufficient content validity and at least low-quality evidence of sufficient internal consistency (Category A), while 17 were classified as Category B.
conclusionsAlthough diverse, the overall quality of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales is suboptimal, and further studies are needed. MHIEC-ST and SAQOL-39 g are recommended, with further measurement properties studies needed to refine and enhance these tools.
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.