SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Assessing psychometric properties of the revised Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire based on COSMIN: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to systematically review the measurement properties of the revised Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) and the methodological quality of the studies to provide evidence for research related to sleep assessment in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed from inception to 10 August 2024. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guideline. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias (RoB) checklist and the JBI cross-sectional study evaluation criteria to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, and the COSMIN quality criteria to assess the measurement properties of the revised RCSQ. Results: A total of 14 studies were included, covering eight language versions of the revised RCSQ, mostly from Asian countries. The samples included ICU patients, older inpatients, orthopedic perioperative patients, and acute stroke patients. Internal consistency was good across most versions, but content validity, structural validity, cross-cultural validity, and measurement error were underreported or insufficient. Methodological quality showed some risk of bias, and the evidence across versions was inconsistent. Conclusion: The revised RCSQ versions show good internal consistency but lack robust validation for key measurement properties. Future studies should follow updated COSMIN guidelines to improve design, reporting, and quality of evidence. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023452082.
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.