ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Nursing consultation protocol for supported self-care for people with Parkinson's disease.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
objectivesto develop and validate the content of the Nursing Consultation Protocol for Supported Selfcare in People with Parkinson's Disease.
methodsthis methodological study was conducted in two stages: protocol development and content validation. Relevance and clarity were assessed using the Delphi technique. After evaluating the protocol instruments, the Content Validity Index was calculated.
resultsan integrative review and a documental study characterizing older people with Parkinson's disease guided the protocol development. The final version comprises 6 sections, 29 topics, and 14 subtopics. The Content Validity Index was high in the first round (0.94) and increased to 0.99 after refinements.
conclusionsthe expert panel deemed the protocol content valid in terms of relevance and clarity. Further research is recommended to assess its clinical validity.
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.