ArticleNursing open2025
Construction of Quality Evaluation Index System for Surgical Positioning: A Delphi Method.
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.
- Construction of Quality Evaluation Index System for Surgical Positioning: A Delphi Method.Nursing open · 2025Article
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
aimTo establish a set of scientific and practical surgical positioning quality evaluation indicators for the operating room in China.
designA mixed-methods study with a quantitative component.
methodsLiterature review and expert group discussions were conducted to identify the potential surgical positioning quality evaluation indicators for the operating room. Then, Delphi surveys were used to collect opinions from experts in the field of surgical positioning. The consistency of the consultation results formed the basis on which we conducted the next rounds of consultation. Based on the importance given to each indicator by the consulted experts in the previous round, we determined the weight coefficient of each indicator with the analytic hierarchy process.
resultsThe questionnaire recovery rates of the two rounds of correspondence were 82.61% and 73.91%, and the average authoritative coefficients were 0.94 and 0.92. The Kendall W values ranged from 0.155 to 0.270 (p < 0.001). The weight coefficients for the first-level, second-level and third-level indicators were 0.157-0.576, 0.046-0.292 and 0.014-0.210, respectively. Consensus was reached on 3 primary indicators, 7 secondary indicators and 19 tertiary indicators. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not involve patients or the public; data were derived from expert consultations and literature analysis.
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.