ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2026
Development and Validation of the Chinese Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale for Endoscopy: A Mixed-Methods Approach.
Article in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 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.
- Development and Validation of the Chinese Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale for Endoscopy: A Mixed-Methods Approach.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a Chinese Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale for Endoscopy for assessing endoscopists' reactions to uncertainty in clinical practice.
methodsUsing a mixed-methods design, we translated the original Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale and generated endoscopy-specific items through focus-group interviews. The draft scale was refined through Delphi consultation and then evaluated in an online survey of 360 digestive endoscopists from 204 hospitals in China. Item reduction was based on dispersion, critical ratio, and item-total correlation analyses. Construct validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Content validity was evaluated using item-level and scale-level content validity indices, and reliability was examined using Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability.
resultsThe final scale comprised 16 items across four dimensions: concerns about uncertainty and bad outcomes, disclosing uncertainty to patients, disclosing mistakes to physicians, and endoscopy-specific uncertainty responses and self-efficacy. In exploratory factor analysis, four factors explained 73.474% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis supported an acceptable four-factor model fit (χ
conclusionsThe Chinese Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale for Endoscopy is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing endoscopists' reactions to uncertainty in China.
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.