ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes Scale: A Short Research Report.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a prevalent and costly healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs). This study aimed to translate the Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes Scale (VAPPKAS), conduct cross-cultural adaptation and test its psychometric properties. A cross-sectional survey was performed, enrolling 322 ICU nurses from one tertiary hospital in Jiangxi Province. The Chinese VAPPKAS consists of two dimensions containing 15 items. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.937, split-half reliability was 0.928, and test-retest reliability was 0.907 (95% CI: 0.887-0.924). The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.867 to 1.000, and the average scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) reached 0.906. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) extracted two factors that jointly explained 76.382% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yielded satisfactory model fit indices: χ
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.