ArticleDigital health
Development, simplification, and prospective methodological exploration of a Chinese endoscopy patient experience scale and a decision support system.
Article in Digital health. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Chinese-language patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for gastrointestinal endoscopy remain limited. We developed and psychometrically evaluated a 54-item Endoscopy Patient Experience Scale (EPES) for Chinese patients; because the field survey had a valid-response rate of 99.28% (965/972), simplification was framed as a prospective methodological exploration rather than as a response to demonstrated burden. Methods: Colonoscopy responses (n = 662) were split by stratified random sampling into an exploration set (n = 463) for exploratory factor analysis and a validation set (n = 199) for confirmatory factor analysis. A 303-patient gastroscopy cohort was used only as a cross-procedure applicability test. A multi-objective black-winged kite algorithm selected Simplified EPES (S-EPES) items to reproduce EPES dimension scores under reliability and item-reduction constraints, and an exploratory decision support system (EPE-DSS) was built from S-EPES and clustering outputs. Results: The EPES showed acceptable structural, convergent and discriminant validity and reliability in the colonoscopy validation set, and the retained structure was compatible with gastroscopy after removal of bowel-preparation dimensions. The 24-item S-EPES achieved per-dimension R Conclusion: The main contribution is the Chinese EPES. S-EPES and EPE-DSS are exploratory prototypes demonstrating score-prediction feasibility, not validated clinical instruments; multicenter validation, comparison with conventional item-reduction methods, and measurement-invariance testing are required.
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.