Translational andrology and urology · 2015
Test-retest reliability and discriminant validity for the Brazilian version of "The Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index and Problem Index" and "Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Patient Symptom Scale" instruments.
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.
Victal Marcella Lima, D'Ancona Carlos Arturo Levi, Junqueira Roberto Gomes, Carlos da Silva Daniel, Oliveira Henrique Ceretta, de Moraes Lopes Maria Helena Baena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose is to evaluate the psychometric properties of reliability and discriminant validity of the Brazilian Portuguese versions of two instruments used in the diagnosis of interstitial cystitis (IC): "The Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index and Problem Index" (The O'Leary-Sant), and "Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Patient Symptom Scale".
METHODS: Three groups of patients were examined: a study group (subjects with IC), control group 1 (individuals with at least one IC symptom), and control group 2 (subjects without IC symptoms). Test-retest stability was evaluated at intervals of 3 to 7 days in the study group. Discriminant validity was examined in all three groups.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) [95% confidence interval (CI)] results were 0.56 (range, 0.21-0.78) for The O'Leary-Sant Symptom Index, 0.48 (range, 0.10-0.73) for The O'Leary-Sant Problem Index, and 0.49 (range, 0.12-0.74) for the PUF. To analyze discriminant validity between groups, we used Fisher's exact test and odd ratio (OR) to identify differences. We obtained a P value<0.0001, which indicated that the null hypothesis was rejected; in other words, there was evidence that at least two different groups were compared to the proportion of patients with IC.
CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed instruments did not reach appropriate values for reliability. Future studies are needed to analyze the psychometric measures of these instruments on a larger sample of patients with IC.
METHODS: Three groups of patients were examined: a study group (subjects with IC), control group 1 (individuals with at least one IC symptom), and control group 2 (subjects without IC symptoms). Test-retest stability was evaluated at intervals of 3 to 7 days in the study group. Discriminant validity was examined in all three groups.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) [95% confidence interval (CI)] results were 0.56 (range, 0.21-0.78) for The O'Leary-Sant Symptom Index, 0.48 (range, 0.10-0.73) for The O'Leary-Sant Problem Index, and 0.49 (range, 0.12-0.74) for the PUF. To analyze discriminant validity between groups, we used Fisher's exact test and odd ratio (OR) to identify differences. We obtained a P value<0.0001, which indicated that the null hypothesis was rejected; in other words, there was evidence that at least two different groups were compared to the proportion of patients with IC.
CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed instruments did not reach appropriate values for reliability. Future studies are needed to analyze the psychometric measures of these instruments on a larger sample of patients with IC.