4.4 Review

Quality of life measurements in patients with osteoporosis and fractures

期刊

CLINICS
卷 67, 期 11, 页码 1315-1320

出版社

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2012(11)16

关键词

Quality of Life; Osteoporosis; Questionnaires; QUALEFFO; OQLQ; OPAQ

资金

  1. CNPq [300559/2009-7]
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To review all specific questionnaires regarding quality of life in osteoporosis and to describe their distinctive indications, we searched Medline, the Scientific Electronic Library Online database, and the Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database. Nine specific questionnaires related to osteoporosis quality of life were found: 1) the Women's Health Questionnaire, 2) Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire, 3) Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire, 4) Osteoporosis Functional Disability Questionnaire, 5) Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis, 6) Osteoporosis-Targeted Quality of Life Questionnaire, 7) Japanese Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire, 8) the 16-item Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Osteoporosis, and 9) the Quality of Life Questionnaire in Osteoporosis (QUALIOST (TM)). The Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis is the osteoporosis-specific questionnaire most commonly used in the literature. The Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire are targeted more toward fracture assessment, and the Osteoporosis Functional Disability Questionnaire can be used for longitudinal studies involving exercise. In the present study, the authors summarize all of the specific questionnaires for osteoporosis and demonstrate that these questionnaires should be selected based on the objectives to be evaluated. Osteoporosis-specific quality of life questionnaires should be validated in the language of the country of origin before being used.

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