4.5 Article

Validation of a self-questionnaire for assessing the control of allergic rhinitis

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 860-868

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03734.x

Keywords

allergic rhinitis; control; score; self-completion questionnaire; treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Background Allergic rhinitis affects the lives of patients for whom discomfort is, in most cases, significantly improved by pharmacological treatment. Objective To develop and validate a self-assessment global score for allergic rhinitis control (five items scored from 1 to 5 assessing the rhinitis over the 2 previous weeks). Methods Study of acceptability, reliability, validity and sensitivity to change during a prospective observational study in 902 patients selected by 411 general practitioners or allergists. Results The score correlated significantly to the clinical picture and to the impact of the rhinitis on social and sports activities at inclusion (P < 0.0001). A significant improvement in the score was observed after 15 days of treatment: 14.9 +/- 4.0 at inclusion and 21.5 +/- 2.9 at re-evaluation after 15 days of treatment (P < 0.0001). Using receiver operating characteristics curve, a score of 20 was the cut-off for poor vs. well-controlled rhinitis; a score strictly higher than 20 (best being 25) had a sensitivity of 67%, a specificity of 82%, a negative predictive value of 32% and a positive predictive value of 95%. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance The self-assessment score for allergic rhinitis control appeared to be sensitive to change and correlated to the clinical expression of rhinitis and also to its involvement with treatment. These results suggest that this self-completion questionnaire could be used in daily practice at each consultation to determine, in a standardized manner, the level of control of the allergic rhinitis of an individual patient.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available