Key result
The Chinese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (r=0.468, P=0.009) and good criterion validity with SF-36 (r=0.610, P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Is the Chinese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) reliable and valid in patients with stable heart failure?
Observational (n=44)
Is the Chinese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) reliable and valid in patients with stable heart failure?
The Chinese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for assessing quality of life in Chinese-speaking heart failure patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports Chinese MLHFQ for QoL research in stable HF; leaves open routine clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
朱燕波 et al. (2004) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=44). Chinese version of Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) vs. SF-36 was evaluated on Test-retest reliability (total score correlation) (r=0.468, p=0.009). The Chinese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (r=0.468, P=0.009) and good criterion validity with SF-36 (r=0.610, P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: