4.6 Article

Qualiveen: A urinary disorder - Specific instrument for use in clinical trials in multiple sclerosis

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 87, Issue 12, Pages 1661-1663

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.08.345

Keywords

bladder, neurogenic; multiple sclerosis; quality of life; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the longitudinal construct validity and the responsiveness of the English and French versions of Qualiveen in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with urinary disorders. Design: Cohort study. Setting: MS clinics and departments of rehabilitation in Canada and France. Participants: One hundred eighty English-speaking and French-speaking outpatients who, at enrollment, were classified as stable if they had no urinary disorders requiring change in medicine, or anticipated improvement if they had troubling urinary disorders that mandated intensified treatment. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: We tested predictions about the relation between changes in other questionnaires (Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 questionnaire or its French version, the SEP-59, and a global rating of change) and changes in the Qualiveen domains. A paired t test in the anticipated improvement group comparing scores before and after the intervention, and the magnitude of the standardized response mean (SRM) provided measures of responsiveness. Results: Consistent with a priori predictions (weighted kappa=.71), changes in Qualiveen score correlated with changes in other questionnaires. All Qualiveen domains detected changes in patients in the anticipated improvement group (P<.001) and differentiated these patients from stable patients (P<.001); all SRMs were large (>.75). Conclusions: Valid and responsive, both English and French versions are useful for MS studies into urinary disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available