Methodological considerations on the validation of the CuidaSM ScaleResponse letter: Furthering the methodological debate on the validation of the CuidaSM ScaleBrazilian scale for evaluation of mental health care needs (CuidaSM): evidence of validity in primary health careEscala de avaliação da necessidade de cuidado em saúde mental: evidências adicionaisEvidence for test validation: a guide for practitionersDetermining sample size requirements in EFA solutions: a simple empirical proposalDecalogue for the factor analysis of test itemsMild-restricted confirmatory factor analysis: a new approach to assessing population factor modelsFactor 9.2: a comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models.

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

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.