Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42521241›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2026

Validation of the Swedish Wound-QOL-14: A Shortened Version of the Original 17-Item Wound-Specific Quality of Life Instrument.

Ami Fagerdahl

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ami FagerdahlDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9170-581X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is increasingly recognized as a key outcome in the management of patients with hard-to-heal wounds. To assess this outcome accurately, valid wound-specific patient-reported outcome measures are required. The Wound-QoL was originally developed as a 17-item questionnaire, and a revised 14-item version, consisting of 14 of the original 17 items, was later introduced to improve clarity and reduce respondent burden. Because changes in item composition may affect psychometric properties, the revised version requires separate evaluation. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Swedish Wound-QoL-14 using data from the Swedish validation study of the Wound-QoL-17. This secondary analysis included data from 88 patients with hard-to-heal wounds recruited from an outpatient wound clinic. Responses from the original instrument were recalculated to reflect the Wound-QoL-14 structure. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients, criterion validity by comparison with EQ-5D-3L, responsiveness using standardized response mean, and ceiling and floor effects were examined. The Wound-QoL-14 demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Criterion validity showed moderate correlations with EQ-5D-3L, responsiveness was moderate for Body and Psyche and smaller for Everyday Life and the global score, and no ceiling or floor effects were observed. The Swedish Wound-QoL-14 is a reliable, valid, and practical instrument for assessing HRQoL in patients with hard-to-heal wounds in clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeWound HealingWounds and InjuriesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesSweden

Identifiers

PMID42521241
PMCPMC13413224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.