Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2019
A visual analog scale for patient-reported voice outcomes: The VAS voice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Naunheim Matthew R, Dai Jennifer B, Rubinstein Benjamin J, Goldberg Leanne, Weinberg Alan, Courey Mark S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be useful for assessing quality of life, they can be complex and cognitively burdensome. In this study, we prospectively evaluated a simple patient-reported voice assessment measure on a visual analog scale (VAS voice) and compared it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10).
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey.
METHODS: An abbreviated voice measure was designed by a team of otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, and patients that consisted of four VAS questions related to (a) a global question of voice disturbance, (b) physical function of voice, (c) functional issues, and (d) emotional handicap. All English-speaking patients presenting to an academic laryngology clinic for a voice complaint were included. Internal consistency and validity were assessed with comparison to the VHI-10.
RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were enrolled. Ninety-two percent of patients reported understanding the survey. The four-item VAS survey was highly correlated with VHI-10 score (Pearson correlation .81, P < .0001), and the Cronbach's alpha between all four VAS questions was .94. Age, gender, and diagnosis were not associated with either the global VAS or VHI-10 tool.
CONCLUSION: Reducing the complexity of instruments assessing voice-related quality of life is feasible, and the VAS voice correlated with existing measures. Simplified assessments may offer advantages compared to more cumbersome PROMs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey.
METHODS: An abbreviated voice measure was designed by a team of otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, and patients that consisted of four VAS questions related to (a) a global question of voice disturbance, (b) physical function of voice, (c) functional issues, and (d) emotional handicap. All English-speaking patients presenting to an academic laryngology clinic for a voice complaint were included. Internal consistency and validity were assessed with comparison to the VHI-10.
RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were enrolled. Ninety-two percent of patients reported understanding the survey. The four-item VAS survey was highly correlated with VHI-10 score (Pearson correlation .81, P < .0001), and the Cronbach's alpha between all four VAS questions was .94. Age, gender, and diagnosis were not associated with either the global VAS or VHI-10 tool.
CONCLUSION: Reducing the complexity of instruments assessing voice-related quality of life is feasible, and the VAS voice correlated with existing measures. Simplified assessments may offer advantages compared to more cumbersome PROMs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.