(0) Save to: more options Quality of life after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis - Different questionnaires lead to different interpretations Author(s): Scarpa, M (Scarpa, Marco); Ruffolo, C (Ruffolo, Cesare); Polese, L (Polese, Lino); Martin, A (Martin, Alessandro); D'Inca, R (D'Inca, Renata); Sturniolo, GC (Sturniolo, Giacomo C.); D'Amico, DF (D'Amico, Davide F.); Angriman, I (Angriman, Imerio) Source: ARCHIVES OF SURGERY Volume: 142 Issue: 2 Pages: 158-165 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.142.2.158 Published: FEB 2007 Times Cited: 15 (from Web of Science) Cited References: 34 [ view related records ] Citation Map Abstract: Background: According to some researchers, health-related quality-of-life scores for patients who undergo restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) for ulcerative colitis (UC) are comparable to those of healthy control subjects. Other studies show evidence that patients who undergo RPC experience a health-related quality of life similar to patients with mild UC or UC in remission. Hypothesis: The discrepancy in health-related quality of-life scores among studies may be due to different health-related quality-of-life analyses. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Outpatient clinic of a tertiary care center. Patients: In the first phase of the study, we consecutively enrolled 24 patients with UC, 24 patients with Crohn disease, and 24 healthy controls. In the second phase of the study, 40 patients who underwent RPC, 43 patients with UC, and 44 controls were consecutively enrolled. Interventions: We administered an Italian version of the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL) instrument, the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument, and the Italian 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Main Outcome Measures: We evaluated the construct. validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, and discriminant ability of the Italian CGQL instrument. We compared its discriminative ability with that of the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument. Results: The Italian CGQL instrument obtained good construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to change. The Italian CGQL score did not distinguish patients who underwent RPC from healthy controls and those with mild UC or UC in remission, while the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument reported similar scores for patients who underwent RPC and those with mild UC or UC in remission, and showed a difference vs healthy controls. Conclusions: We validated an Italian version of the CGQL score. The different results obtained with the CGQL and the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instruments can be attributed to the different discriminative ability of the 2 questionnaires.

Quality of Life After Restorative Proctocolectomy for Ulcerative Colitis

MARTIN, ALESSANDRO;I. ANGRIMAN
2007

Abstract

(0) Save to: more options Quality of life after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis - Different questionnaires lead to different interpretations Author(s): Scarpa, M (Scarpa, Marco); Ruffolo, C (Ruffolo, Cesare); Polese, L (Polese, Lino); Martin, A (Martin, Alessandro); D'Inca, R (D'Inca, Renata); Sturniolo, GC (Sturniolo, Giacomo C.); D'Amico, DF (D'Amico, Davide F.); Angriman, I (Angriman, Imerio) Source: ARCHIVES OF SURGERY Volume: 142 Issue: 2 Pages: 158-165 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.142.2.158 Published: FEB 2007 Times Cited: 15 (from Web of Science) Cited References: 34 [ view related records ] Citation Map Abstract: Background: According to some researchers, health-related quality-of-life scores for patients who undergo restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) for ulcerative colitis (UC) are comparable to those of healthy control subjects. Other studies show evidence that patients who undergo RPC experience a health-related quality of life similar to patients with mild UC or UC in remission. Hypothesis: The discrepancy in health-related quality of-life scores among studies may be due to different health-related quality-of-life analyses. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Outpatient clinic of a tertiary care center. Patients: In the first phase of the study, we consecutively enrolled 24 patients with UC, 24 patients with Crohn disease, and 24 healthy controls. In the second phase of the study, 40 patients who underwent RPC, 43 patients with UC, and 44 controls were consecutively enrolled. Interventions: We administered an Italian version of the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL) instrument, the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument, and the Italian 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Main Outcome Measures: We evaluated the construct. validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, and discriminant ability of the Italian CGQL instrument. We compared its discriminative ability with that of the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument. Results: The Italian CGQL instrument obtained good construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to change. The Italian CGQL score did not distinguish patients who underwent RPC from healthy controls and those with mild UC or UC in remission, while the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instrument reported similar scores for patients who underwent RPC and those with mild UC or UC in remission, and showed a difference vs healthy controls. Conclusions: We validated an Italian version of the CGQL score. The different results obtained with the CGQL and the Padova Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life instruments can be attributed to the different discriminative ability of the 2 questionnaires.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/137546
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
social impact