. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis (SC) Brasil.
. Núcleo de Pesquisa em Asma e Inflamação das Vias Aéreas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis (SC) Brasil.
J Bras Pneumol. 2021 May 31;47(3):e20200371. doi: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20200371. eCollection 2021.
To test the reliability, validity, and interpretability of the Brazilian version of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) in patients with COPD.
Fifty patients with COPD completed the CCQ by interview on two occasions. At the first visit, the CCQ was administered twice, by two different raters, approximately 10 min apart; the patients also underwent spirometry and were administered the COPD Assessment Test, the modified Medical Research Council scale, and Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). At the second visit (1-2 weeks later), the CCQ was readministered. We tested the hypothesis that the CCQ total score would correlate positively with the total and domain SGRQ scores (r ≥ 0.5).
Of the 50 patients, 30 (60%) were male. The mean age was 66 ± 8 years, and the mean FEV1 was 44.7 ± 17.9% of the predicted value. For all CCQ items, Cronbach's alpha coefficient (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.91-0.96). To analyze the interrater reliability and test-retest reliability of the CCQ, we calculated the two-way mixed effects model/single measure type intraclass correlation coefficient (0.97 [95% CI: 0.95-0.98] and 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.95], respectively); the agreement standard error of measurement (0.65 for both); the smallest detectable change at the individual level (1.81 and 1.80, respectively) and group level (0.26 and 0.25, respectively); and the limits of agreement (-0.58 to 0.82 and -1.14 to 1.33, respectively). The CCQ total score correlated positively with all SGRQ scores (r ≥ 0.70 for all).
The Brazilian version of the CCQ showed an indeterminate measurement error, as well as satisfactory interrater/test-retest reliability and construct validity.
测试巴西版临床慢性阻塞性肺疾病问卷(CCQ)在 COPD 患者中的可靠性、有效性和可解释性。
50 名 COPD 患者通过访谈在两次就诊时完成 CCQ。在第一次就诊时,CCQ 由两名不同的评估者在大约 10 分钟的间隔内进行两次评估;患者还接受了肺量测定,并接受了 COPD 评估测试、改良的医学研究理事会量表和圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)评估。在第二次就诊(1-2 周后),重新进行了 CCQ 评估。我们检验了 CCQ 总分与 SGRQ 总分和各领域得分呈正相关(r≥0.5)的假设。
50 名患者中,30 名(60%)为男性。平均年龄为 66±8 岁,平均 FEV1 为预计值的 44.7±17.9%。所有 CCQ 项目的克朗巴赫α系数(95%CI)为 0.93(0.91-0.96)。为分析 CCQ 的评估者间信度和重测信度,我们计算了双向混合效应模型/单一测量类型组内相关系数(0.97[95%CI:0.95-0.98]和 0.92[95%CI:0.86-0.95]);测量误差的协议标准误差(两者均为 0.65);个体水平的最小可检测变化(分别为 1.81 和 1.80)和群体水平的最小可检测变化(分别为 0.26 和 0.25);以及一致性界限(分别为-0.58 至 0.82 和-1.14 至 1.33)。CCQ 总分与所有 SGRQ 评分均呈正相关(r≥0.70)。
巴西版 CCQ 显示出不确定的测量误差,同时具有令人满意的评估者间/重测信度和结构有效性。