ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Construction and content validation of a checklist for effective communication of nursing care to newborns.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
objectivesto construct and validate the content of a checklist to support communication of nursing care for newborns admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit.
methodsa methodological study conducted in two stages. The first involved three dimensions: theoretical, grounded in an integrative literature review; operational, with the development of the initial version of the checklist; and empirical, carried out through the "Plan, Do, Check, Act" cycle with the participation of 15 nurses from a neonatal intensive care unit. The second stage consisted of content validation by 19 experts, using the Content Validity Ratio.
resultsthe final checklist consisted of 84 items, distributed as follows: 31 items in the Procedures category, 23 in Checking, and 30 in Documentation. The overall Content Validity Ratio reached an average of 0.948.
conclusionsthe checklist was validated in terms of content by consensus of the expert committee and can be used in clinical practice.
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.