ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Validity Study of the "Imbalanced Energy Field" Nursing Diagnosis.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2026. 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 analyze the "Imbalanced Energy Field" (00273) nursing diagnosis content.
methodsa content validity study of a nursing diagnosis. Twelve judges assessed the relevance of the elements of the NANDA-I "Imbalanced Energy Field" nursing diagnosis and the clarity and precision of its conceptual and operational definitions. A Content Validity Index ≥0.80 was considered adequate.
resultsall definitions were analyzed by judges, in addition to the validity of the 22 defining characteristics and five related factors already existing in NANDA-I 2021-2023. The exclusion of seven defining characteristics and the modification of ten terms were suggested (Delphi Agreement Index ≥80%). Conceptual and operational definitions of these defining characteristics were constructed, validating them using a Content Validity Index ≥0.80.
conclusionsafter validity, 15 defining characteristics and five related factors were deemed relevant and the suggested changes were approved and published by NANDA-I 2024-2026.
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.