An Electronic Questionnaire for Liver Assessment in Congenital Disorders of Glycosylation (LeQCDG): A Patient-Centered Study

  • D. Marques-da-Silva
  • R. Francisco
  • V. dos Reis Ferreira
  • L. Forbat
  • R. Lagoa
  • P. A. Videira
  • P. Witters
  • J. Jaeken
  • D. CassimanEmail author
Research Report
Part of the JIMD Reports book series (JIMD, volume 44)


Congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG) are ultra-rare diseases showing a great phenotypic diversity ranging from mono- to multi-organ/multisystem involvement. Liver involvement, mostly nonprogressive, is often reported in CDG patients. The main objectives of this work were (1) to better understand liver involvement in CDG patients through a liver electronic questionnaire targeting CDG families (LeQCDG) and (2) to compare responses from LeQCDG participants with literature review regarding the prevalence of liver disease and the occurrence of liver symptoms in CDG patients. The network of patient advocacy groups, families and professionals (CDG & Allies – PPAIN) developed the LeQCDG by adapting validated published questionnaires. The LeQCDG was approved by an ethics committee, and the recruitment of patients and caregivers proceeded through social media platforms. Participants were asked to report past or present liver-related symptoms (e.g. hepatomegaly, liver fibrosis and cirrhosis) and laboratory results (e.g. biochemical and/or radiological). From 11 December 2016 to 22 January 2017, 155 questionnaires were completed. Liver disease was present in 29.9% of CDG patients. Main symptoms reported included hepatomegaly, increased levels of serum transaminases, fibrosis, steatosis and cirrhosis. The data obtained in this online survey confirm findings from a recent literature review of 25 years of published evidence (r = 0.927, P = 0.02). Our questionnaire collected large amounts of meaningful, clinical and patient-oriented data in a short period of time without geographic limitations. Internet-based approaches are especially relevant in the context of ultra-rare diseases such as CDG.


Congenital disorder(s) of glycosylation (CDG) Literature review Liver PMM2-CDG Questionnaire Rare diseases 


CDG & Allies

PPAIN – CDG Professionals and Patient Associations International Network


Congenital disorder(s) of glycosylation


Chronic liver disease questionnaire


Electronic patient-reported outcomes


Hepatitis quality-of-life questionnaire


Liver disease quality-of-life questionnaire

LDSI 2.0

Liver disease symptom index 2.0


Liver electronic questionnaire for CDG


Polycystic liver disease-specific symptom questionnaire


Post-liver transplant quality of life


Patient-reported outcomes


Quality of life



Dorinda Marques-da-Silva acknowledges the support from the Rare Disease Foundation’s microgrant and ‘Liliana Scientific Scholarship’; Rita Francisco acknowledges Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia for the grant SFRH/BD/124326/2016 awarded to her.

We also thank the CDG & Allies – Professionals and Patient Associations International Network (CDG & Allies PPAIN), whose network expertise greatly helped in the creation of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

477624_1_En_121_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary Material ■■■ (DOCX 1092 kb)


  1. Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW (2013) Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J Child Neurol 28:1142–1150. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Budych K, Helms TM, Schultz C (2012) How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient-physician interaction. Health Policy 105:154–164. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton-Chase AM, Parker WM, Hennig K et al (2017) The use of social media to recruit participants with rare conditions: lynch syndrome as an example. JMIR Res Protoc 6:e12. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chevreul K, Gandré C, Brigham KB et al (2016) Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with fragile X syndrome in Europe. Eur J Health Econ 17(Suppl 1):43–52. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD et al (2009) Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health 12:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Ambrosi R, Ragone V, Caldarini C et al (2017) The impact of hereditary multiple exostoses on quality of life, satisfaction, global health status, and pain. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:209–215. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies W (2016) Insights into rare diseases from social media surveys. Orphanet J Rare Dis 11:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erhart M, Ellert U, Kurth BM, Ravens-Sieberer U (2009) Measuring adolescents’ HRQoL via self reports and parent proxy reports: an evaluation of the psychometric properties of both versions of the KINDL-R instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:77. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of Internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenner Y, Garland SM, Moore EE et al (2012) Web-based recruiting for health research using a social networking site: an exploratory study. J Med Internet Res 14:e20. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Francisco R, Pascoal C, Marques-da-Silva D, Morava E, Gole GA, Coman DJJ (2018) Keeping an eye on congenital disorders of O-glycosylation. A systematic literature review. J Inherit Metab Dis.
  12. Geissler J, Sharf G, Bombaci F et al (2017) Factors influencing adherence in CML and ways to improvement: results of a patient-driven survey of 2546 patients in 63 countries. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:1167–1176. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutteling JJ, de Man RA, Busschbach JJ, Darlington AS (2007) Overview of research on health-related quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease. Neth J Med 65:227–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaeken J, Péanne R (2017) What is new in CDG? J Inherit Metab Dis 40(4):569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaeken J, Vanderschueren-Lodeweyckx M, Casaer P et al (1980) Familial psychomotor retardation with markedly fluctuating serum prolactin, FSH and GH levels, partial TBG deficiency, increased serum arylsulfatase A and increased CSF protein: a new syndrome. Pediatr Res 14:179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lachin JM (1981) Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2:93–113. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Malcolm C, Hain R, Gibson F et al (2012) Challenging symptoms in children with rare life-limiting conditions: findings from a prospective diary and interview study with families. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr 101:985–992. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marques-da-Silva D, dos Reis Ferreira V, Monticelli M et al (2017a) Liver involvement in congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG). A systematic review of the literature. J Inherit Metab Dis 40:195. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marques-da-Silva D, Francisco R, Webster D et al (2017b) Cardiac complications of congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG): a systematic review of the literature. J Inherit Metab Dis 40:657. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW et al (2013) Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health 16:461–479. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Molster C, Urwin D, Di Pietro L et al (2016) Survey of healthcare experiences of Australian adults living with rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis 11:30. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Monticelli M, Ferro T, Jaeken J et al (2016) Immunological aspects of congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG): a review. J Inherit Metab Dis 39:765–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mucci S, Citero VA, Gonzalez AM et al (2010) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) to the Brazilian population. Cad Saude Publica 26:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neijenhuis MK, Gevers TJG, Hogan MC et al (2016) Development and validation of a disease-specific questionnaire to assess patient-reported symptoms in polycystic liver disease. Hepatology 64:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Obradovic M, Gluvic Z, Petrovic N et al (2017) A quality of life assessment and the correlation between generic and disease-specific questionnaires scores in outpatients with chronic liver disease-pilot study. Rom J Intern Med 55:129–137. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Paulsen A, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S, Roos E (2010) Feasibility of four patient reported outcome measures in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. A cross-sectional study of 6000 patients. Hip Int 20:354Google Scholar
  27. Price MA, Barghout V, Benveniste O et al (2016) Mortality and causes of death in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis: survey study based on the clinical experience of specialists in Australia, Europe and the USA. J Neuromuscul Dis 3:67–75. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Saab S, Ng V, Landaverde C et al (2011) Development of a disease-specific questionnaire to measure health-related quality of life in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transplant 17:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saffari M, Alavian SM, Naderi MK et al (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the liver disease symptom index 2.0 to measure health-related quality of life among Iranian patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Transcult Nurs 27:496–508. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schumacher KR, Stringer KA, Donohue JE et al (2014) Social media methods for studying rare diseases. Pediatrics 133:e1345–e1353. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Topolovec-Vranic J, Natarajan K (2016) The use of social media in recruitment for medical research studies: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res 18:e286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tozzi AE, Mingarelli R, Agricola E et al (2013) The Internet user profile of Italian families of patients with rare diseases: a web survey. Orphanet J Rare Dis 8:76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Der Plas SM, Hansen BE, De Boer JB et al (2007) Generic and disease-specific health related quality of life of liver patients with various aetiologies: a survey. Qual Life Res 16:375–388. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Younossi ZM, Boparai N, Price LL et al (2001) Health-related quality of life in chronic liver disease: the impact of type and severity of disease. Am J Gastroenterol 96:2199–2205. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zeltner NA et al (2016) Development and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for paediatric patients with intoxication-type inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis 39:S133Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism (SSIEM) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Marques-da-Silva
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. Francisco
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • V. dos Reis Ferreira
    • 2
    • 3
  • L. Forbat
    • 4
    • 5
  • R. Lagoa
    • 6
  • P. A. Videira
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • P. Witters
    • 3
    • 7
  • J. Jaeken
    • 3
    • 7
  • D. Cassiman
    • 3
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.UCIBIO, Departamento Ciências da Vida, Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade NOVA de LisboaCaparicaPortugal
  2. 2.Portuguese Association for CDGLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.CDG & Allies – Professionals and Patient Associations International Network (CDG & Allies – PPAIN)CaparicaPortugal
  4. 4.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  5. 5.Australian Catholic UniversityCanberraAustralia
  6. 6.ESTG – Instituto Politécnico de LeiriaLeiriaPortugal
  7. 7.Center for Metabolic DiseasesUZ and KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations