Unal G, de Boer J B, Borsboom G J, Brouwer J T, Essink-Bot M, de Man R A
Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Erasmus University Hospital Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Jun;54(6):587-96. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00372-3.
Four generic [the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP-68), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQol instrument (EQ-5D), COOP/WONCA charts], two domain-specific health-related quality of life measures [the sexuality scale of the HIV Overview Problems Evaluating System (HOPES), Multi-dimensional Fatigue Index (MFI-20)], and a self-developed 12-item symptom index were compared in terms of feasibility, test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and known groups validity in patients with chronic liver disease. All instruments could be completed within 10 min and exhibited a good psychometric performance in patients with chronic liver disease. The SF-36 and the MFI-20 performed relatively best in terms of reliability, construct validity, and discriminative ability. The sexuality scale of the HOPES demonstrated a relatively poor performance, as the missing value rate was higher than 5%. Further research is needed into the sensitivity to important clinical changes of the instruments.
对四种通用的[疾病影响量表(SIP - 68)、简短健康调查问卷(SF - 36)、欧洲五维度健康量表(EQ - 5D)、COOP/WONCA图表]、两种特定领域的健康相关生活质量测量工具[HIV综合问题评估系统(HOPES)的性量表、多维疲劳指数(MFI - 20)]以及一个自行编制的12项症状指数,在慢性肝病患者中就可行性、重测信度、内部一致性信度、结构效度和已知组效度进行了比较。所有工具均可在10分钟内完成,且在慢性肝病患者中表现出良好的心理测量性能。SF - 36和MFI - 20在信度、结构效度和区分能力方面表现相对最佳。HOPES的性量表表现相对较差,因为缺失值率高于5%。需要进一步研究这些工具对重要临床变化的敏感性。