Department of Dermatology and Wound Healing, Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K.
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Melatonin Research Group, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Nov;177(5):1306-1315. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15314. Epub 2017 Jun 12.
The use of patient-reported outcome measures in electronic format has been increasing. However, these formats are usually not validated or compared with the original paper-based formats, so there is no evidence that they are completed in the same way.
To compare the conventional paper version with a web-based application (iPad ) version of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) to assess equivalence of scores.
The study employed a randomized crossover design using a within-subjects comparison of the two formats of the questionnaire. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines were followed. Participants aged over 18 years with any confirmed skin condition were recruited from a teaching hospital dermatology outpatient clinic. Expected intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0·9 (α = 0·05).
A total of 104 patients were recruited, median age 53·5 years (interquartile range 37·3-67·8; 43% male). The ICC showed high concordance between the total DLQI scores from paper and iPad versions (ICC 0·98; 95% confidence interval 0·97-0·99). Patients took a median of 78 s to complete the electronic version and 73 s for paper (P = 0·008): 76% preferred the electronic version and perceived completion to take a shorter time.
There is high concordance and thus equivalence between the iPad and paper versions of the DLQI, with an ICC of 0·98, and a clear patient preference for the iPad version.
电子格式的患者报告结局测量的使用正在增加。然而，这些格式通常未经验证或与原始纸质格式进行比较，因此没有证据表明它们是以相同的方式完成的。
比较皮肤病生活质量指数（DLQI）的传统纸质版本和基于网络的应用程序（iPad）版本，以评估分数的等效性。
该研究采用随机交叉设计，对两种问卷格式进行了受试者内比较。遵循国际药物经济学和结果研究学会（ISPOR）指南。从一所教学医院皮肤科门诊招募了年龄在 18 岁以上且有任何确诊皮肤疾病的参与者。预期的组内相关系数（ICC）为 0.9（α=0.05）。
共招募了 104 名患者，中位年龄为 53.5 岁（四分位间距 37.3-67.8；43%为男性）。ICC 显示纸质和 iPad 版本的总 DLQI 评分之间具有高度一致性（ICC 0.98；95%置信区间 0.97-0.99）。患者完成电子版的中位数时间为 78 秒，而纸质版为 73 秒（P=0.008）：76%的患者更喜欢电子版，并认为完成时间更短。
iPad 和纸质版 DLQI 之间具有高度一致性和等效性，ICC 为 0.98，并且患者明显更喜欢 iPad 版本。
