4.7 Article

Development and content validity of a gastroparesis cardinal symptom index daily diary

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 670-680

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04078.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society
  2. Evoke
  3. GSK
  4. Movetis
  5. SmartPill
  6. Salix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background The Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) is a patient-reported outcome for gastroparesis using a two-week recall period. To minimize potential patient recall effects, a daily diary version of the GCSI (GCSI-DD) was developed. Aims To evaluate the content validity of GCSI-DD for the symptoms in patients with documented gastroparesis, to capture symptom variability over time and to compare responses of this GCSI-DD to the original GCSI. Methods In gastroparesis adults with delayed gastric emptying, cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted to elicit their perspective on relevant symptoms of gastroparesis and relevant recall periods and to evaluate patient understanding of GCSI-DD. Patients completed the GCSI-DD daily over a 2-week period and completed the GCSI at baseline and the 2-week follow-up visit. Results Twelve gastroparesis patients, of whom five were diabetic and nine women, reported nausea (100%), vomiting (100%), stomach fullness (75%), bloating (58%) and loss of appetite (50%) were important symptoms. All patients understood diary instructions and item content and reported that the diary captured their gastroparesis symptom experience; 83% considered response scales adequate. There was significant daily variability in GCSI-DD scores. Mean GCSI-DD subscale and total scores over 2 weeks correlated strongly (all r > 0.90) with GCSI scores at 2-week follow-up. Conclusions The GCSI-DD includes symptoms relevant to patients with gastroparesis, captures daily variability of those symptoms and has psychometric properties consistent with a good patient-reported outcome endpoint for gastroparesis clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据