ArticleBMC nephrology2026
The reliability and validity study of the Turkish version of the Uncertainty about Disease and Treatment Scale in hemodialysis patients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUncertainty is common in chronic illness and can weaken treatment adherence and psychosocial well-being. Hemodialysis involves persistent symptoms and treatment unpredictability, making uncertainty assessment clinically important. This study was methodologically designed to test the psychometric properties of the Turkish form of the Uncertainty about Disease and Treatment Scale (UC-D&TS) in hemodialysis patients.
methodAdult patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis in a state hospital and a private dialysis center in southern Turkey were recruited between February and June 2025 (n = 155). The scale underwent linguistic and cultural adaptation using the forward-backward translation method. Test-retest reliability was evaluated in a randomly selected subgroup of 50 participants from the original sample after a 2-week interval. Data were collected using a Descriptive Information Form and the 17-item UC-D&TS (5-point Likert). Content validity was assessed via expert review and content validity index (CVI). Construct validity was examined with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Bartlett's test, exploratory factor analysis (EFA; principal axis factoring extraction, varimax), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in LISREL. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and stability using test-retest reliability.
resultsContent validity was acceptable (CVI = 0.80). Sampling adequacy supported factor analysis (KMO = 0.821) and Bartlett's test was significant (χ²=992.856, p < 0.001). EFA produced a four-factor solution explaining 59.13% of variance; all loadings were ≥ 0.30 and no items were removed. CFA indicated acceptable fit (χ²/df = 1.77; NNFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.95; PNFI = 0.74; SRMR = 0.072; RMSEA = 0.071). Reliability was high (total α = 0.872; subscales α = 0.641-0.824) and test-retest reliability was excellent (r = 0.986).
conclusionsThe Turkish UC-D&TS, which underwent Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine its factor structure, demonstrated satisfactory content validity, a stable four-factor structure, acceptable model fit, high internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
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.