Taylor William J, Redden David, Dalbeth Nicola, Schumacher H Ralph, Edwards N Lawrence, Simon Lee S, John Markus R, Essex Margaret N, Watson Douglas J, Evans Robert, Rome Keith, Singh Jasvinder A
From the Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand; Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; University of Pennsylvania and Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; and Integrated Hospital Care Franchise, Immunology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; Pfizer Inc., New York, New York, USA; Epidemiology, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA; Clinical Sciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New Jersey, USA; Health & Rehabilitation Research Institute and School of Podiatry, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and Birmingham VA Medical Center and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
J Rheumatol. 2014 Mar;41(3):574-80. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131245. Epub 2014 Jan 15.
To determine the extent to which instruments that measure core outcome domains in acute gout fulfill the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter requirements of truth, discrimination, and feasibility.
Patient-level data from 4 randomized controlled trials of agents designed to treat acute gout and 1 observational study of acute gout were analyzed. For each available measure, construct validity, test-retest reliability, within-group change using effect size, between-group change using the Kruskall-Wallis statistic, and repeated measures generalized estimating equations were assessed. Floor and ceiling effects were also assessed and minimal clinically important difference was estimated. These analyses were presented to participants at OMERACT 11 to help inform voting for possible endorsement.
There was evidence for construct validity and discriminative ability for 3 measures of pain [0 to 4 Likert, 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS), 0 to 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)]. Likewise, there appears to be sufficient evidence for a 4-point Likert scale to possess construct validity and discriminative ability for physician assessment of joint swelling and joint tenderness. There was some evidence for construct validity and within-group discriminative ability for the Health Assessment Questionnaire as a measure of activity limitations, but not for discrimination between groups allocated to different treatment.
There is sufficient evidence to support measures of pain (using Likert, NRS, or VAS), joint tenderness, and swelling (using Likert scale) as fulfilling the requirements of the OMERACT filter. Further research on a measure of activity limitations in acute gout clinical trials is required.
确定用于测量急性痛风核心结局领域的工具在多大程度上符合风湿病结局测量(OMERACT)筛选标准中的真实性、区分性和可行性要求。
分析了4项旨在治疗急性痛风的药物随机对照试验和1项急性痛风观察性研究中的患者层面数据。对于每项可用测量指标,评估了结构效度、重测信度、使用效应量的组内变化、使用Kruskal-Wallis统计量的组间变化以及重复测量广义估计方程。还评估了地板效应和天花板效应,并估计了最小临床重要差异。这些分析结果在OMERACT 11会议上展示,以帮助为可能获得认可的投票提供信息。
有证据表明,3种疼痛测量指标[0至4级李克特量表、0至10级数字评分量表(NRS)、0至100毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)]具有结构效度和区分能力。同样,对于医生评估关节肿胀和关节压痛的4级李克特量表,似乎也有足够证据表明其具有结构效度和区分能力。有一些证据表明,作为活动受限测量指标的健康评估问卷具有结构效度和组内区分能力,但对于分配到不同治疗组之间的区分则不具有。
有充分证据支持疼痛测量指标(使用李克特量表、NRS或VAS)、关节压痛和肿胀测量指标(使用李克特量表)符合OMERACT筛选标准的要求。急性痛风临床试验中活动受限测量指标还需要进一步研究。