4.6 Article

Assessing Graves' ophthalmopathy-specific quality of life in Korean patients

Journal

EYE
Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 544-551

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.359

Keywords

Graves' ophthalmopathy; quality of life; questionnaire

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To investigate the clinical significance of Grave's ophthalmopathy-specific quality of life (GO-QOL) in Korean patients. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, on 98 consecutive Grave's ophthalmopathy (GO) patients. The GO-QOL survey provided by Terwee and colleagues and suggested by the European group on Graves' orbitopathy (EUGOGO) was translated into Korean language and distributed to study participants. Clinical severity was judged by scores of the modified NOSPECS classification, and inflammatory activity was measured by a seven-point scale of clinical activity score (CAS). Results The mean GO-QOL scores were 73.7 (standard deviation (SD), 26) for visual functioning, 61.9 (SD 26) for appearance, and 67.8 for total quality of life (QOL; SD 22). The worse QOL scores for each part were significantly associated with the higher modified NOSPECS score and CAS after adjusting for confounders such as age and sex (P < 0.05, respectively). In particular, decreased QOL scores for visual function were significantly correlated with a higher grade of extraocular muscle involvement (P < 0.05). Lower QOL scores for appearance were associated with more severe soft-tissue involvement and proptosis (P < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions GO-QOL suggested by EUGOGO showed correlation with objective clinical parameters. GO-QOL can be a simple and effective tool in the evaluation of the clinical and psychological illness of GO patients. Eye (2012) 26, 544-551; doi:10.1038/eye.2011.359; published online 13 January 2012

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