4.7 Article

Validation of the Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES) in paediatric cancer and SCT

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 2515-2522

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.618

关键词

mucositis; children; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1 R21 DE021400-01]
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [102711]
  3. Canadian Institutes for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Objectives were to describe the reliability and validity of a new paediatric-specific mucositis scale, the Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES). Methods: In a multi-centre prospective study, children aged 0 to <= 18 years were eligible if they were receiving any of the following: myeloablative stem cell transplantation (SCT), >= 60mgm(-2) course(-1) doxorubicin or >= 12 gm(-2) methotrexate. Multiple measures of mucositis were included along with ChIMES. Respondents were parent proxy report for children aged < 12 years, and child self-report for children aged 12-18 years and 8 to o12 years. Mucositis diaries were completed at baseline and on Days 7-17 following chemotherapy/conditioning. On Day 14, the respondent reported presence of mucositis and change since the previous day. Results: The 185 respondents included parents (N=98), children aged 12-18 years (N=66) and children aged 8 to o12 years (N=21). Test-retest reliability was excellent for ChIMES Total Score and ChIMES Percentage Score with r > 0.8 for all respondent types. Criteria for construct validation were met across all measures. ChIMES also demonstrated responsiveness with significant differences between baseline and Day 14. Conclusion: ChIMES is a paediatric-specific measure of mucositis with favourable psychometric properties. It exhibits reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. ChIMES should be incorporated into clinical trials of mucositis prevention and treatment in paediatric cancer and SCT.

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