4.5 Article

Validation of the IOF quality of life questionnaire for patients with wrist fracture

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 61-70

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-0946-6

关键词

Distal forearm fracture; EQ-5D; Qualeffo-41; Quality of life; Utility; Wrist fracture

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [U1475000001] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10082] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A620_1014] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wrist fracture causes pain and decreased physical, social and emotional function. The International Osteoporosis Foundation has developed a specific questionnaire to assess quality of life in patients with wrist fracture. This questionnaire, including 12 questions, was validated in a multicentre study and compared with an osteoporosis-specific questionnaire (Qualeffo-41) and a generic questionnaire (EQ-5D). The study included 105 patients with a recent wrist fracture and 74 sex- and age-matched control subjects. The questionnaire was administered as soon as possible after the fracture, at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after the fracture. Test-retest reproducibility, internal consistency and sensitivity to change were assessed. The results showed adequate repeatability and internal consistency of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) wrist fracture questionnaire. The discriminatory capacity between patients and control subjects was very high, with significant odds ratios for each question and domain. The IOF-wrist fracture questionnaire domain scores showed significant improvement after 3 and 6 months and some improvement from 6 months up to 1 year. The sensitivity to change was much higher for the IOF-wrist fracture total score than for Qualeffo-41 and EQ-5D. In conclusion, the IOF-wrist fracture questionnaire appears to be a reliable and responsive quality of life questionnaire.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据