ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Updated Version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT 2.0).
Article in International wound journal, 2026. 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.
- Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Updated Version of the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT 2.0).International wound journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to translate the PUKAT 2.0 tool from English to Italian. This was an adaptation and validation study; the validity of the Italian version was determined through content validity, item validity and construct validity. The reliability of the instrument was assessed by conducting a test-retest analysis on a sample of 62 nurses. The I-CVI indices were above the threshold of 0.78 for 91% of the questions, and according to the S-CVI index, 96% of the evaluators agreed that the questionnaire was highly relevant. The overall values for item difficulty were good, with two items being too difficult and none being too easy. The item discriminant index was overall good and reasonable, low for four items. The overall ICC was poor to moderate with a value of 0.48 (95% CI 0.26-0.65). The instrument has proven to be a good starting point although not yet completely reliable, as it clearly requires more basic preparation on the part of the staff, further modifications regarding the reliability and clarity of the questions and more training of the nursing staff if it is to be used in the Italian context.
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.