ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Validation and Clinimetric Properties of Persian Version of the ISTAP Classification System.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the Content of a Mobile Digital Board-Game Application, Constituting a Playful Tool for the Management of Friction Injuries.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Validation and Clinimetric Properties of Persian Version of the ISTAP Classification System.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skin tears (ST) are common traumatic wounds, particularly among older adults, that can lead to complications if not accurately assessed and classified. The International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) classification system is widely used internationally; however, no validated Persian version currently exists. To culturally adapt, and evaluate the clinimetric properties of the Persian version of the ISTAP Classification System. This methodological study was conducted from February to May 2025 in multiple phases. After forward-backward translation and expert review, face and content validity were assessed. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing nurses' classifications with expert consensus using weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient. Construct validity was examined using the known-groups method, comparing skin tear frequency and severity between 30 elderly patients with impaired mobility and 30 younger adults without impaired mobility. Reliability was evaluated using Fleiss' kappa coefficient for multiple raters, and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient for inter-rater and intra-rater agreement. Diagnostic accuracy indices, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), odds ratio (OR) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), were calculated for each skin tear type. Content validity was excellent (content validity ratio (CVR): 0.82-1.00; item-level content validity index (I-CVI): 0.91-1.00; scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave): 0.94). Criterion validity showed almost perfect agreement with experts (weighted κ = 0.902, p < 0.001). Construct validity was supported by significant group differences in skin tear frequency (Fisher's exact p = 0.001) and severity (t(58) = 2.12, p = 0.039). Reliability was substantial to almost perfect across analyses (Fleiss' κ = 0.8447; inter-rater weighted κ = 0.66; intra-rater weighted κ = 0.86). Diagnostic accuracy was excellent for all types (AUC = 0.99), with sensitivity 97.5%-99.2%, specificity 98.4%-99.6%, PPV 97.5%-99.3%, NPV 98.1%-99.6% and very high OR and LR values. The Persian version of the ISTAP Classification System demonstrated excellent validity, reliability and diagnostic accuracy, supporting its use as a standardised tool for assessing ST in Persian-speaking healthcare settings.
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.