4.4 Article

A brief version of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 1144-1150

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22392

关键词

olfaction; quality of life; questionnaire of olfactory disorders; smell; sinusitis

资金

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health [R03 DC013651-01, R01 DC005805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS) is a valuable instrument in the measurement of olfactory-specific quality of life (QOL). In the clinical setting, patients can be overwhelmed with the time required to complete questionnaires. Our objective was to develop a brief version of the QOD-NS to streamline clinical care and research. Methods QOD-NS scores from 221 subjects were used to determine which subset of the 17 QOD-NS questions best correlated with total and subdomain QOD-NS scores. An initial pool of 11 questions was made by removing items with rho < 0.80 to their respective subdomain scores. Next, 500 bootstrapped samples were taken. On each sampe, an all-subsets regression was performed with total QOD-NS scores and QOD-NS subdomain scores as the outcomes. From this, our top and bottom 10 subsets were identified based on mean r(2) value, representation in bootstrap analysis, and number of items. Results All of our top subsets had excellent correlation with total and subdomain QOD-NS scores (mean r(2) > 0.90). Our top choice has 7 total questions, is representative of all subdomains, has a mean r(2) = 0.92, and was represented in 323 of our 500 bootstrapped samples. The worst-performing subset has 5 items, mean r(2) = 0.81, and was represented in only 1 bootstrapped sample. Conclusions Using less than half of the questions in the QOD-NS, excellent correlations with both total and domain-specific scores are achieved. A brief version of the QOD-NS may prove useful in future clinical and research settings.

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

4.4
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