ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Development and validation of a questionnaire for feedback responses regarding the usefulness of the anatomical model to teach lung isolation skills.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: An anatomical model was developed in-house to teach novices lung isolation skills bedside. To know the utility of the model, we planned a survey following a structured teaching program. The questionnaire used for feedback purpose was tested for content validity and has been detailed. Materials and Methods: Eleven questions were included in the survey. A Google form was prepared and mailed to 12 content experts to grade each question. In the Microsoft excel sheet, item-wise content validity index (I-CVI), scale-wise content validity index (S-CVI) and modified kappa statistic (κ) were calculated. The I-CVI of 0.78 and the S-CVI/average of 0.90 were considered acceptable. Results: Eleven out of 12 content experts responded. SCVI and S-CVI/Ave were uniformly 0.99 and 0.91, respectively, for relevance, simplicity, clarity, and ambiguity for all 11 questions. Conclusion: The questionnaire designed to obtain feedback regarding the anatomical model to teach lung isolation techniques met the content validity in both qualitative and quantitative terms.
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.