Magnoux E, Freeman M A, Zlotnik G
Montreal Migraine Clinic, Montreal, Canada.
Cephalalgia. 2008 Jan;28(1):26-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01461.x. Epub 2007 Oct 23.
The aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the French translation of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 questionnaires as applied to episodic and chronic headaches and to assess the correlation between these two questionnaires. The MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires, which assess the degree of migraine-related functional disability, are widely used in headache treatment clinics. The French translation has not been checked for test-retest reliability. MIDAS involves recall, over the previous 3 months, of the number of days with functional disability with regard to work and to home and social life. HIT-6 involves a more subjective and general assessment of headache-related disability over the previous 4 weeks. We expect that there may be greater impact recall bias for chronic headaches than for episodic headaches and considered it important to be able to determine if the reliability of these questionnaires is equally good for these two patient populations. Given that both questionnaires have the same objective, that of assessing headache impact, it was thought useful to determine if their results might show a correlation and if they could thus be used interchangeably. The study was approved by an external ethics committee. The subjects were patients who regularly visit the Clinique de la Migraine de Montréal, which specializes in the treatment of headaches. The MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires were completed by the patients during their regular visit. Twelve days later, the same questionnaires were mailed with a prepaid return envelope. Sixty-five patients were required in both the episodic and chronic headache groups, assuming an 80% questionnaire return rate. One hundred and eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 143 completed the study, 75 with episodic headaches and 68 with chronic headaches. The questionnaire return rate was 78.9%. On average, questionnaires were completed a second time 21 days after the first, with a median of 19 days. The Shrout-Fleiss intraclass correlation coefficients for MIDAS and HIT-6 were, respectively, 0.76 and 0.77 for episodic headaches and 0.83 and 0.80 for chronic headaches. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires was 0.48 for episodic headaches and 0.58 for chronic headaches at the first compilation and 0.42 and 0.59 at the second compilation. The test-retest intraclass correlation of the French versions for both MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires indicates moderate reliability for episodic headache and substantial reliability for chronic headache. The correlation between the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires is weak for episodic headaches, but approaches a level of 'good' for chronic headaches.
目的是评估偏头痛残疾评估量表(MIDAS)和头痛影响测试(HIT)-6问卷的法语翻译版在发作性头痛和慢性头痛患者中的重测信度,并评估这两份问卷之间的相关性。MIDAS和HIT-6问卷用于评估偏头痛相关功能残疾的程度,在头痛治疗诊所中广泛使用。其法语翻译版尚未进行过重测信度检验。MIDAS涉及回顾前3个月中因工作、家庭及社交生活出现功能残疾的天数。HIT-6涉及对前4周内与头痛相关残疾进行更主观、更全面的评估。我们预计慢性头痛患者中回忆偏差的影响可能大于发作性头痛患者,并认为确定这两份问卷对这两类患者群体的信度是否同样良好很重要。鉴于两份问卷的目标相同,即评估头痛影响,因此确定它们的结果是否具有相关性以及是否可以互换使用是很有意义的。该研究获得了外部伦理委员会的批准。研究对象为定期前往蒙特利尔偏头痛诊所就诊的患者,该诊所专门治疗头痛。患者在定期就诊时完成MIDAS和HIT-6问卷。12天后,将相同问卷与预付回邮信封一同邮寄给患者。假设问卷回收率为80%,发作性头痛组和慢性头痛组均需要65名患者。共招募了185名患者,143名完成了研究,其中75名患有发作性头痛,68名患有慢性头痛。问卷回收率为78.9%。平均而言,问卷在首次填写后21天完成第二次填写,中位数为19天。MIDAS和HIT-6问卷的Shrout-Fleiss组内相关系数在发作性头痛患者中分别为0.76和0.77,在慢性头痛患者中分别为0.83和0.80。MIDAS和HIT-6问卷之间的Pearson相关系数在首次填写时,发作性头痛患者为0.48,慢性头痛患者为0.58;在第二次填写时,发作性头痛患者为0.42,慢性头痛患者为0.59。MIDAS和HIT-6问卷法语版的重测组内相关性表明,对于发作性头痛为中等信度,对于慢性头痛为高信度。MIDAS和HIT-6问卷之间的相关性在发作性头痛患者中较弱,但在慢性头痛患者中接近“良好”水平。