4.7 Review

Systematic Review: Disease Activity Indices in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 112, 期 11, 页码 1658-1669

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.363

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: There is no clear consensus regarding the most appropriate measure(s) of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity. We aimed to identify all scoring indices used for the measurement of disease activity in EoE, appraise their operating properties, and discuss their value as outcome measures. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane library) were searched from inception to 11 May 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that reported outcomes to measure EoE disease activity or response to treatment were eligible. Operating properties of histologic, endoscopic, and patient reported/symptomatic and health-related quality of life measures were critically appraised according to guidelines proposed by the United States Food and Drug Administration. RESULTS: Of 4,373 citations, 130 studies were eligible, of which 20 were RCTs. Although no index met all evaluative criteria, we found that: (1) the EoE histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) is the most valid histologic measure; (2) the Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) is the most reliable and responsive endoscopy measure; and (3) the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI) or the Dysphagia Symptoms Questionnaire (DSQ) had superior construct validity and responsiveness in adults. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE was the most valid pediatric symptomatic measure. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the use of the EoEHSS and EREFS as measures of histologic and endoscopic EoE disease activity, respectively, and the EEsAI, DSQ, or Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE as measures of adult and pediatric symptoms. Additional research is needed to optimize endpoint configuration to facilitate development of new therapies.

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

4.7
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