4.6 Article

Decreased health-related quality of life in angiodysplasia patients: A cross-sectional cohort

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177522

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastrointestinal angiodysplasias may cause anemia. Quality of life (QoL) is a valid patient reported outcome and improvement of QoL represents an important treatment goal. There is a paucity of data on the effect of angiodysplasias on QoL. Therefore, we aim to evaluate QoL and fatigue in angiodysplasia patients. We performed a cross-sectional patient-reported outcome study. We included patients with endoscopy proven angiodysplasias and measured QoL with Short Form-36 and level of fatigue using Multi Fatigue Inventory-20. We distinguished three subgroups of patients according to disease severity: 1) with treatment for angiodysplasias, 2) without treatment for angiodysplasias and 3) without recent hospital visits. The primary outcome was the physical component summary (PCS) score on the SF-36. Multivariate regression analysis were performed to correct for differences at baseline. A total of 144 patients completed the questionnaires (response rate = 62%; mean age 68 years; 65% men). Angiodysplasia patients have a significant lower PCS compared to the age-matched general population (respectively 41.0 vs. 43.3, p = 0.01). Disease severity is independently associated with a negative outcome on QoL (beta -4.6, 95% CI -7.8--1.3). Similarly patients score lower on multiple QoL subdomains, i.e. role limitations due to physical health problems (40.8 vs. 44.0, p<0.01), general health (39.7 vs. 47.3, p<0.01). Angiodysplasia patients are more fatigued compared to the general population (male 56.1 vs. 48.5, p<0.01, female 59.2 vs. 51.5, p = 0.01). In conclusion, angiodysplasias are independently associated with clinically significant impairments in multiple domains of health-related QoL, especially in measures of functional limitation.

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

4.6
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