ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Validation of the Spanish Version of the Wound-QoL-14 Wound-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim was to validate the Spanish/Spain version of the Wound-QoL-14. Clinical data were prospectively collected from participants who completed the questionnaire at baseline and at a follow-up visit. COSMIN guidelines were followed to evaluate feasibility, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Overall, 323 participants (71.1 ± 14.6 years; 52% males) were included. Feasibility was excellent (missing items: 0.95%). Reliability was good (very good internal consistency [McDonald's omega: 0.934] and test-retest reliability [concordance correlation coefficient: 0.915; 95% CI: 0.837-0.956. Standard error of measurement: 0.141]). Regarding construct validity, the survey showed good structural validity since the three factors extracted after the exploratory factor analysis were confirmed (Comparative fit index: 0.942. Tucker-Lewis index: 0.927. Standardized root mean square residual: 0.042. Root mean square error of approximation: 0.089; 90% CI: 0.077-0.102) and good known-groups and convergent validities (4/4 and 7/9 predefined hypotheses supported, respectively). Criterium validity was excellent (Spearman's rho with Wound-QoL-17 global score: 0.934). Finally, the instrument was suitable to detect improvement (Floor effect: 0.3%. Ceiling effect: 1.5%. Area under the receiving operator characteristic curve: 0.795; 95% CI: 0.732-0.858; p < 0.001. Standardized effect size: 0.928. Standardized response mean: 0.852). The Spanish/Spain version of the Wound-QoL-14 is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the health-related quality of life in Spanish patients with chronic wounds.
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.