Dataset Information

Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or COPD.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) is a novel, four-item patient-reported diagnosis-agnostic tool designed to assess the frequency of respiratory symptoms and their impact on activity, without specifying a particular diagnosis. Our objective was to examine its validity in patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

Baseline data were randomly sampled from patients who completed the RSQ in the NOVELTY study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02760329). The total sample (n=1530) comprised three randomly selected samples (n=510 each) from each physician-assigned diagnostic group (asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD). The internal consistency and structural validity of the RSQ were evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; psychometric performance was observed using Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory analyses.

Results

For the total sample, the mean±sd RSQ score was 5.6±4.3 (range 0-16). Irrespective of diagnosis, the internal consistency of items was uniformly adequate (Cronbach's ?=0.76-0.80). All items had high factor loadings and structural characteristics of the measure were invariant across groups. Using the total sample, RSQ items informatively covered the ? score range of -2.0 to 2.8, with discrimination coefficients for individual items being high to very high (1.7-2.6). Strong convergent correlations were observed between the RSQ and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (0.77, p<0.001).

Conclusions

The RSQ is a valid, brief, patient-reported tool for assessing respiratory symptoms in patients across the whole spectrum of asthma and/or COPD, rather than using different questionnaires for each diagnosis. It can be used for monitoring respiratory symptoms in clinical practice, clinical trials and real-world studies.

SUBMITTER: Karlsson N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7861031 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or COPD.

Karlsson Niklas N Atkinson Mark J MJ Müllerová Hana H Alacqua Marianna M Keen Christina C Hughes Rod R Janson Christer C Make Barry B Price David D Reddel Helen K HK

ERJ open research 20210101 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) is a novel, four-item patient-reported diagnosis-agnostic tool designed to assess the frequency of respiratory symptoms and their impact on activity, without specifying a particular diagnosis. Our objective was to examine its validity in patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).<h4>Methods</h4>Baseline data were randomly sampled from patients who completed the RSQ in the NOVELTY study (ClinicalTrials. ...[more]

PMID: 33569501

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Severe asthma and asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome (ACOS) are difficult to control and are often associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, much is not understood regarding the diagnosis and treatment of severe asthma and ACOS. To evaluate the current perceptions of severe asthma and COPD among asthma and COPD specialists, we designed an e-mail and internet-based questionnaire survey. METHODS:Subjects were selected based on clinical specialty from among the members of the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. Of 432 subjects who received an e-mail invitation to the survey, 95 subjects, including 58 allergists and 37 pulmonologists, responded and submitted their answers online. RESULTS:The specialists estimated that the percentage of severe cases among total asthma patients in their practice was 13.9%±11.0%. Asthma aggravation by stepping down treatment was the most common subtype, followed by frequent exacerbation, uncontrolled asthma despite higher treatment steps, and serious exacerbation. ACOS was estimated to account for 20.7% of asthma, 38.0% of severe asthma, and 30.1% of COPD cases. A history of smoking, persistently low forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and low FEV1 variation were most frequently classified as the major criteria for the diagnosis of ACOS among asthma patients. Among COPD patients, the highly selected major criteria for ACOS were high FEV1 variation, positive bronchodilator response, a personal history of allergies and positive airway hyperresponsiveness. Allergists and pulmonologists showed different assessments and opinions on asthma phenotyping, percentage, and diagnostic criteria for ACOS. CONCLUSIONS:Specialists had diverse perceptions and clinical practices regarding severe asthma and ACOS patients. This heterogeneity must be considered in future studies and strategy development for severe asthma and ACOS.

Project description:Previous studies have described increased occurrence of asthma among healthcare workers, but to our knowledge there are no validated survey questionnaires with which to study this occupational group.To develop, validate, and refine a new survey instrument on asthma for use in epidemiological studies of healthcare workers.An initial draft questionnaire, designed by a multidisciplinary team, used previously validated questions where possible; the occupational exposure section was developed by updating health services specific chemical lists through hospital walk-through surveys and review of material safety data sheets. A cross-sectional validation study was conducted in 118 non-smoking subjects, who also underwent bronchial challenge testing, an interview with an industrial hygienist, and measurement of specific IgE antibodies to common aeroallergens.The final version consisted of 43 main questions in four sections. Time to completion of the questionnaire ranged from 13 to 25 minutes. Test-retest reliability of asthma and allergy items ranged from 75% to 94%, and internal consistency for these items was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > or = 0.86). Against methacholine challenge, an eight item combination of asthma related symptoms had a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 70%; against a physician diagnosis of asthma, this same combination showed a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 98%. Agreement between self-reported exposures and industrial hygienist review was similar to previous studies and only moderate, indicating the need to incorporate more reliable methods of exposure assessment. Against the aerollergen panel, the best combinations of sensitivity and specificity were obtained for a history of allergies to dust, dust mite, and animals.Initial evaluation of this new questionnaire indicates good validity and reliability, and further field testing and cross-validation in a larger healthcare worker population is in progress. The need for development of more reliable occupational exposure assessment methods that go beyond self-report is underscored.

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires are used in research and clinical practice. For gastrointestinal complaints the Rome II questionnaire is internationally known but not validated. The aim of this study was to validate a printed and a computerized version of Rome II, translated into Swedish. Results from various analyses are reported.MethodsVolunteers from a population based colonoscopy study were included (n = 1011), together with patients seeking general practice (n = 45) and patients visiting a gastrointestinal specialists' clinic (n = 67). The questionnaire consists of 38 questions concerning gastrointestinal symptoms and complaints. Diagnoses are made after a special code. Our validation included analyses of the translation, feasibility, predictability, reproducibility and reliability. Kappa values and overall agreement were measured. The factor structures were confirmed using a principal component analysis and Cronbach's alpha was used to test the internal consistency.Results and discussionTranslation and back translation showed good agreement. The questionnaire was easy to understand and use. The reproducibility test showed kappa values of 0.60 for GERS, 0.52 for FD, and 0.47 for IBS. Kappa values and overall agreement for the predictability when the diagnoses by the questionnaire were compared to the diagnoses by the clinician were 0.26 and 90% for GERS, 0.18 and 85% for FD, and 0.49 and 86% for IBS. Corresponding figures for the agreement between the printed and the digital version were 0.50 and 92% for GERS, 0.64 and 95% for FD, and 0.76 and 95% for IBS. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for GERS was 0.75 with a span per item of 0.71 to 0.76. For FD the figures were 0.68 and 0.54 to 0.70 and for IBS 0.61 and 0.56 to 0.66. The Rome II questionnaire has never been thoroughly validated before even if diagnoses made by the Rome criteria have been compared to diagnoses made in clinical practice.ConclusionThe accuracy of the Swedish version of the Rome II is of doubtful value for clinical practice and research. The results for reproducibility and reliability were acceptable but the outcome of the predictability test was poor with IBS as an exception. The agreement between the digital and the paper questionnaire was good.

Dataset Information

Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or COPD.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or COPD.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets