ArticleBMC cancer2026
Psychometric and structural properties of Traditional Chinese version of postoperative oral dysfunction-10 in patients with oral cancer undergoing facial free flap reconstruction surgery.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
purposeDysphagia is a frequent complication in oral cancer patients after free-flap reconstruction. Although the Postoperative Oral Dysfunction-10 (POD-10) is widely used to assess swallowing dysfunction, no validated Traditional Chinese version exists for Mandarin-speaking Taiwanese patients. This study aimed to translate the POD-10 into Traditional Chinese (TC-POD-10) and evaluate its reliability and validity in Mandarin-speaking Taiwanese patients with oral cancer undergoing free-flap reconstruction.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 100 oral cancer patients post free-flap surgery in a medical center. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Criterion validity was assessed by correlating TC-POD-10 with the Chinese Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Known-group validity was tested using Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) scores to distinguish between patients with and without dysphagia. Diagnostic accuracy was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsThe TC-POD-10 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.94) and strong correlation with FOIS (r = -0.89, p < 0.001). Patients with dysphagia had significantly higher TC-POD-10 scores (14.6 vs. 10.0, p < 0.001). EFA revealed a single-factor model explaining 65.6% of variance. The tool showed high accuracy (AUC = 0.92), with sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 96% at a cutoff score of 15.
conclusionThe TC-POD-10 is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing dysphagia in Taiwanese oral cancer patients. Its strong psychometric performance supports its clinical use for evaluating and managing swallowing dysfunction.
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.