ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Reliability and validity of the Chinese Version of the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating (FIBSER) Scale is a brief tool developed to assess side effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the FIBSER in Chinese patients with MDD. Methods: A total of 162 MDD patients were enrolled to assess the Chinese version of FIBSER, the self-report version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (QIDS-SR16), and the Rating Scale for Side Effects (SERS). Reliability and validity were evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient, test-retest reliability, Spearman correlation analysis, and Principal component analysis. Results: The Cronbach's α coefficient for the Chinese version of the FIBSER was 0.945. The test-retest reliability coefficients for the three domains were 0.799, 0.821, and 0.897, respectively. The correlation coefficients between FIBSER and SERS ranged from 0.765 to 0.817. The correlation coefficients with QIDS-SR16 ranged from 0.187 to 0.270. Principal component analysis found one significant principal component, highlighting the prominence of side effect frequency as a factor. The Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted values in the confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent convergent validity. Conclusions: The study suggests that the Chinese version of the FIBSER tool exhibits good reliability and validity in patients with MDD. It is suitable for the rapid clinical assessment of side effects in patients receiving antidepressant treatment.
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.