Development and Validation of a Cross-Cultural Questionnaire to Evaluate Nonulcer Dyspepsia: The Porto Alegre Dyspeptic Symptoms Questionnaire (PADYQ)
- 145 Downloads
Despite its high prevalence, nonulcer dyspepsia is still difficult to study, due to the lack of adequate tools to measure significant outcomes. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a symptom-focused, disease-specific questionnaire to evaluate patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. For that, the questionnaire was carefully written following widely accepted terminology, so as to facilitate translation and validation in other languages and cultures. The questionnaire was developed using Rome I terminology for symptoms, which were evaluated according to their intensity, duration, and frequency when applicable. Thirty-one patients with nonulcer dyspepsia, as well as 31 sex-and age-matched volunteers without digestive problems were used to assess the internal consistency, reproducibility, responsiveness, content validity, and discriminant validity of the questionnaire. Another 31 functional dyspeptic patients were enrolled for assessment of criterion validity. Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.82. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the scores obtained 7 days apart was 0.86. The mean score obtained after 3 months of treatment was 16.4, vs. 23.03 at baseline (P=0.001). Two blinded gastroenterologists agreed that the questionnaire adequately evaluated nonulcer dyspepsia. The median symptoms score for controls was 0, vs. 22.5 for dyspeptic patients (P=0.001). An inverse correlation was observed between quality of life and dyspeptic symptoms (R = −0.28, P = 0.026). The proposed questionnaire has high degrees of both reproducibility and responsiveness. As this questionnaire was based on Rome I International Consensus terminology, it is expected that it will be easy to translate and validate.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Talley N, Stanghellini V, Heading RC, Koch KL, Nalagelada J, Tytgat G. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. In The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, 2nd ed. Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley N, Thompson WG, Whitehead WE (eds). Lawrence, Degnon Associates, 2000 pp. 299–350Google Scholar
- 5.Talley NJ, Colin-Jones D, Koch K, Koch M, Nyren O, Stanghellini V: Functional dyspesia: A classification with guidelines for diagnosis and management. Gastroenterol Int 4:145–160, 1991Google Scholar
- 8.Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford Medical, 1995Google Scholar
- 10.Streiner DL, Norman GR: Selecting the items. In Health Measurement Scales, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford Medical, Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
- 11.Fachel J, Carney S: Avlição psicomátrica: A qualidade das medidas e o entendimento dos dados. In: Cunha J (ed). Psicodiagnstico V. Porto Alegre, Artmed Editora, 2000Google Scholar
- 15.Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford Medical, 1995Google Scholar
- 19.Streiner DL, Norman GR: Validity: In Health Measurement Scales, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford Medical, 1995Google Scholar
- 21.Almeida TL: Anlise fatorial. http://lula.dmat.furg.b/∼taba/posanafat.htm. Accessed 6 Aug 2003Google Scholar
- 22.van Zanten SJ, Talley NJ, Blum AL, Bolling-Sternevald E, Sundin M, Junghard O: Combined analysis of the ORCHID and OCAY studies: Does eradication of Helicobacter pylori lead to sustained improvement in functional dyspepsia symptoms? Gut 50 (Suppl 4):iv26–iv30, 2002Google Scholar
- 23.van Zanten SJ: Assessment of outcome in dyspepsia: Has progress been made? Gut 50 (Suppl 4):iv23–iv25, 2002Google Scholar
- 27.Drossman DA: Chronic abdominal pain (with emphasis on functional abdominal pain syndrome). In Feldman, Sleisenger & Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and liver disease, 7th ed. Feldman M, Scharschimidt BF, Sleisenger MH (eds). Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 2002 Google Scholar
- 29.Junghard O, Lauritsen K, Talley NJ, Wiklund IK: Validation of seven graded diary cards for severity of dyspeptic symptoms in patients with non ulcer dyspepsia. Eur J Surg Suppl 583:106–111, 1998Google Scholar