Objective To develop an evaluation tool for the screening of high risk population for oral complications in critically ill patients, which can be performed accurately and scientifically. Methods Basing on the related foreign oral assessment scale, combined with the method of brainstorming, expert consultation, method of clinical status and so on, the item pool of the assessment scale was determined. Five nursing experts and two oral experts assessed the content validity and 50 ICU nurses were tested. Then, the screening accuracy of the assessment scale was proved by application in 100 critically ill patients selected randomly. Results The Cronbach’s a coefficient of final version of the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients (including seven parts contents of oral health assessment and oral pH value test) was 0.815, the content validity index (Sr-CVI/Ave) was 0.932. The results of 50 nurses to the 91.2% assessment items of the assessment scale were very important and important. For screening related indicators of oral complications in high-risk patients, the sensitivity of the assessment scale was 97.53%, the specificity was 94.11%, the positive predictive value was 98.75%, the negative predictive value was 88.89%, and the crude agreement was 95%. Conclusion There are good reliability, validity and a high accuracy of screening test in the High Risk Assessment Scale for Oral Complications in Critically Ill Patients. It can be used for screening patients at high risk for oral complications in critically ill patients, and help clinical nurses to complete the oral health status of the critically ill patients quickly.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability,validity and feasibility of a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) scale in the subjects with respiratory failure. Methods364 patients with chronic respiratory failure and 97 healthy subjects were face-to-face interviewed by well-trained investigators,and the data of respiratory failure -PRO instrument were collected. The psychometric performance such as reliability,validity,responsiveness and clinical feasibility in the respiratory failure -PRO instrument was evaluated. ResultsThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the respiratory failure -PRO instrument and each dimension were greater than 0.7. Factor analysis showed that the instrument had good construct validity. The scores of each of the facets and total scores between the patients and the healthy subjects were different. The recovery rate and the efficient rate of the questionnaire were more than 95%,and the time required to complete a questionnaire was within 15 minutes,indicating that the scale had a high clinical feasibility. ConclusionThe respiratory failure -PRO instrument has good reliability,validity,responsiveness and clinical feasibility.
ObjectiveBy establishing a set of evaluation system for thoracoscopic clinical function and applicability, to evaluate and compare the advantages and disadvantages of different brands of thoracoscopes, and to provide some suggestions for the innovation and upgrade of thoracoscopes, especially for the domestic thoracoscopes.MethodsThe project coordination team initially formulated the evaluation index system for the clinical function and applicability of thoracoscope by querying literature and brainstorming. The Delphi expert consultation method was used to distribute questionnaires to the selected experts. Experts provided scores which were based on the importance of each indicator, and clarified the basis of their judgment and the familiarity with the evaluation indicators. After two rounds of screening by Delphi method, a thoracoscopic clinical function and applicability satisfactory questionnaire was formed. The appropriate sample for pre-investigation was selected, and the reliability and validity were tested. The index composition was adjusted based on the results of the test to form a final evaluation scale.ResultsThe project coordination team initially formulated 24 thoracoscope-related evaluation indicators. After two rounds of experts consultation, the item "brightness adjustment" was deleted without any additional entries. The positive coefficients of the experts in the first round and the second round were 100.0% and 80.0%, respectively. The two rounds of authoritative coefficients were 0.86 and 0.90, and the coordination coefficients were 0.272 (P<0.001) and 0.523 (P<0.001), respectively. A total of 140 questionnaires were issued in this pre-investigation. The recovery rate was 100.0% and the effective rate was 90.0%. The Cronbach's α value of the scale was 0.936, and the Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient was 0.972. The factor analysis finally extracted 3 common factors. The total variance of the cumulative interpretation was 70.9%. The three common factors were named "operation related", "image related" and "device related".ConclusionThe evaluation index system developed in this study has good reliability and validity, and can be used as a tool to evaluate the clinical function and applicability of thoracoscopes.
ObjectiveTo investigate the reliability and validity of Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36) for evaluating quality of life (QOL) of thoracic surgery patients in a specific regional medical center,and improve care and nursing plan for these patients. MethodsNinety-five patients who were admitted in Department of Thoracic Surgery of West China Hospital from March to May 2012 were enrolled in this study. Ninety-four patients finished a valid questionnaire study including 68 male and 26 female patients with their average age of 62.0±13.0 years. Preoperative diagnosis was squamous cell lung cancer in 8 patients,lung adenocarcinoma in 6 patients,small cell lung cancer in 1 patient,esophageal cancer in 12 patients and undefined lung mass in 67 patients. Postoperative diagnosis was squamous cell lung cancer in 39 patients, lung adenocarcinoma in 28 patients,small cell lung cancer in 8 patients,esophageal cancer in 12 patients,pulmonary tuberculosis in 3 patients and inflammatory pseudo-tumor in 4 patients. Chinese edition of SF-36 was used to evaluate patients' QOL. Cronbach's coefficients (α) and split-half reliability were used to assess its reliability. Its validity was assessed through factor analysis. ResultsCronbach's coefficients (α) of SF-36 were as followed:Physical Functioning (PF) 0.721,Role-Physical (RP) 0.859,General Health (GH) 0.721,Vitality (VT) 0.899,Social Functioning (SF) 0.852,Role-Emotional (RE) 0.872,and Mental Health (MH) 0.598. Split-half reliability of each part was PF 0.725,RP 0.784,GH 0.758,VT 0.749,SF 0.745,RE 0.740,and MH 0.426. Nine principal components were extracted by factor analysis and generally reflected the 8 dimensions of SF-36,which was correspondent to the SF-36 structure. ConclusionSF-36 scale can be used to measure QOL of thoracic surgery patients with good reliability and validity.
Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of IBS-QOL scale in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. Methods IBS-QOL scale was applied to survey the quality of life of 123 IBS patients. The split-half and internal consistency method were used to evaluate the reliability, and with the construct method to evaluate the validity. Results The split-half reliability was 0.86. Cronbach’s α-coefficient of all domains was between 0.71 and 0.89 except body image and food avoidance; In the correlation analysis, the correlations between items and its subscale structure were above 0.60 (except interference with activity), but there were no correlations between items and other subscale structure. Eight components from factorial analysis were in accordance with theoretical structure.The cumulative contribution rate was 72.7%. Conclusions The reliability and validity of IBS-QOL scale are acceptable. It might be useful for us to assess the QOL of IBS patients in China.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of Guideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST). MethodsWith the guideline for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in China (2020 edition) as the target guideline, health care providers and patients from different hospitals across the country were investigated by questionnaire using A-GIST. Spearman-Brown coefficient and Cronbach's α coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability, while the structural validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity were investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation. ResultsThe internal consistency reliability and split half reliability coefficients of the whole tool and each dimension ranged from 0.650 to 0.986. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) of content validity was 0.846. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that, the χ2/df of two sections of the tool were 8.695 and 6.123, respectively. The root mean square residual (RMR), the standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were under or almost under the threshold. Besides, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of them were 0.901 and 0.822, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) were 0.836 and 0.787, and the parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) were 0.545 and 0.788, respectively. ConclusionGuideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST) was proved to be valid and reliable, and it shows that it is necessary to optimize the items under the dimensions of maintenance and evaluation of diagnosis and treatment effect in the future.
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicability evaluation tool, a preliminary revised tool, by using it to appraise specific clinical guidelines.MethodsMedical staffs were sampled from relevant departments in domestic medical institutions to use tool to evaluate the two guidelines. Spearman-Brown coefficient of odd-even split-half method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison hypothesis test, and the structural validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation.ResultsThe split-half reliability of the evaluation tool was 0.86, and the Cronbach's coefficient of the whole tool and each dimension were greater than 0.7 for two guidelines. The success rates of tool convergent and discriminant validity calibration were 100%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2 and df were 3.38 and 2.46, the comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.872 and 0.974, the goodness of fit index (GFI) were 0.954 and 0.983, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.846 and 0.959 for two guidelines respectively. Both standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. Both P values of RMSEA hypothesis test were greater than 0.05.ConclusionsThe evaluation scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the applicability of CPGs, which should be further evaluated in practical applications in the future.
At present, the network meta-analysis has been rapidly developed and widely used, and it has the characteristic of quantifying and comparing the relative advantages of two or more different interventions for a single health outcome. However, comparison of multiple interventions has increased the complexity of drawing conclusions from network meta-analysis, and ignorance of the certainty of evidence has also led to misleading conclusions. Recently, the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) working group proposed two approaches for obtaining conclusions from a network meta-analysis of interventions, namely, the partially contextualised framework and the minimally contextualised framework. When using partially contextualised framework, authors should establish ranges of magnitudes of effect that represent a trivial to no effect, minimal but important effect, moderate effect, and large effect. The guiding principles of this framework are that interventions should be grouped in categories based on the magnitude of the effect and its benefit or harm; and that when classifying, consider the point estimates, the rankings, and the certainty of the evidence comprehensively to draw conclusions. This article employs a case to describe and explain the principles and four steps of partially contextualised framework to provide guidance for the application of this GRADE approach in the interpretation of results and conclusions drawing from a network meta-analysis.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). MethodsThe experts of domestic medical institutions were investigated by questionnaire, and the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were evaluated the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of tinea mantis and tinea pedis (revised edition 2017) and the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cerebral hemorrhage in China (2019). Using Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient to evaluate the inherent reliability and split-half reliability. The content validity was evaluated by calculating the content validity index of the item level and the adjusted Kappa value. The correlation coefficient between each item and the dimension and the hypothesis test were used to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity. The structural validity was evaluated by using structural equation model to evaluate the structural validity of the tool. ResultsThe Cronbach's α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient of the instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) were both greater than 0.7, the content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) were more than 0.8, the success rates of convergent were 100%, and the success rates of discriminant validity calibration were 100% and 96%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2/ df were less than 3, the fitting index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the adjustment goodness of fit index (AGFI) were all greater than 0.9. The root mean square residual (RMR) were all less than 0.05, and approximate error root mean square (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. The P value of RESEA hypothesis test were more than 0.05. ConclusionThe instrument of clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) has good reliability and validity, which can be further verified in practical application in the future.