4.4 Article

Health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 99, 期 9, 页码 1525-1531

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2014.106963

关键词

-

资金

  1. The Wilhelmina Children's Hospital Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite its generally transient and benign course, childhood immune thrombocytopenia has a large impact on health-related quality of life. Recently published guidelines state that quality of life should be taken into account while making decisions on management in childhood immune thrombocytopenia. We, therefore, assessed health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in a prospective multicenter study. One hundred and seven children aged 6 months-16 years (mean age 5.57 years) were included. We used Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory(TM) and Kids' ITP Tools questionnaires at diagnosis and during standardized follow-up. Scores on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory(TM) Core Scales were compared with those of healthy children. Relationships between health-related quality of life scores and treatment modality, bleeding tendency and course of the disease were examined. Kids' ITP Tools proxy reports and parent self-reports showed significant higher health-related quality of life scores in children who recovered than in children with persistent immune thrombocytopenia (at 3 months: Kids' ITP Tools parent self-report score 80.85 for recovered patients (n=69) versus 58.98 for patients with persistent disease (n=21), P<0.001). No significant differences in health-related quality of life were found between children with mild or moderate bleeding or between children who received intravenous immunoglobulin or children who were carefully observed. In conclusion, health-related quality of life of children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia is not influenced by treatment modality or bleeding severity, but only by clinical course of the disease.

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