4.3 Article

The Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire-30: Documentation of Reliability and Validity of a Tool for Interventional Trials in Adults with Esophageal Disease

期刊

DYSPHAGIA
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 221-230

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-009-9246-8

关键词

Dysphagia; Reproducibility; Concurrent validity; Questionnaire; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders

资金

  1. Miles and Shirley Fiterman Center for Digestive Diseases at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  2. NIH [NIDDK 02956]
  3. Glaxo Smith Kline
  4. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to develop the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire-30 Day (MDQ-30), a tool to measure esophageal dysphagia, by adapting items from validated instruments for use in clinical trials, and assess its feasibility, reproducibility, and concurrent validity. Outpatients referred to endoscopy for dysphagia or seen in a specialty clinic were recruited. Feasibility testing was done to identify problematic items. Reproducibility was measured by test-retest format. Concurrent validity reflects agreement between information gathered in a structured interview versus the patients' written responses. The MDQ-30, a 28-item instrument, took 10 min (range = 5-30 min) to complete. Four hundred thirty-one outpatients [210 (49%) men; mean age = 61 years] participated. Overall, most concurrent validity kappa values for dysphagia were very good to excellent with a median of 0.78 (min 0.28, max 0.95). The majority of reproducibility kappa values for dysphagia were moderate to excellent with a median kappa value of 0.66 (min 0.07, max 1.0). Overall, concurrent validity and reproducibility kappa values for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were 0.81 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.91) and 0.66 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.77), respectively. Individual item percent agreement was generally very good to excellent. Internal consistency was excellent. We conclude that the MDQ-30 is an easy-to-complete tool to evaluate reliably dysphagia symptoms over the last 30 days.

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

4.3
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