European journal of haematology · 2021
Translation, validation, and usability of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool (Self-ISTH-BAT).
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hansen Rasmus Søgaard, Carlsen Mette, Rasmussen Kristina Fruerlund, Vinholt Pernille Just
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bleeding questionnaires are effective and recommended screening tools for potential bleeding disorder, but healthcare practitioner-administered bleeding assessment tools (expert-ISTH-BATs) are time-consuming. A patient-administered ISTH-BAT (self-ISTH-BAT) has been developed and validated. We translated, validated, and evaluated the usability of self-ISTH-BAT.
METHODS: We conducted a forward-backward translation of self-ISTH-BAT from English to Danish. Expert-ISTH-BAT and Danish self-ISTH-BAT were administered to 106 random individuals aged ≥18 years attending Odense University Hospital between August and November 2020 for elective blood sampling. Results comprise a score of bleeding symptoms.
RESULTS: Mean age of included individuals were 49 years (range: 18-83), and 59% were female. Median self-ISTH-BAT score was 2 (range: 0-18) and 1 (range: 0-22) for expert-ISTH-BAT (P = .09). All organ systems had ≥90% exact score agreement between expert-ISTH-BAT and self-ISTH-BAT, except gastrointestinal bleeding (77%) and other bleedings (72%). We found an acceptable correlation (r2 = .80) between expert-ISTH-BAT and self-ISTH-BAT. The self-ISTH-BAT had 82% sensitivity and 89% specificity at the recommended cutoff for expert-BAT (female:<6; male:<4). At this cutoff, 10 had abnormal self-ISTH-BAT scores with normal expert-ISTH-BAT. Three (3%) had normal self-ISTH-BAT with abnormal expert-ISTH-BAT.
CONCLUSION: Self-ISTH-BAT can replace expert-ISTH-BAT as a screening tool for bleeding disorders in Danish individuals as only 3% were not identified with the self-ISTH-BAT tool.
METHODS: We conducted a forward-backward translation of self-ISTH-BAT from English to Danish. Expert-ISTH-BAT and Danish self-ISTH-BAT were administered to 106 random individuals aged ≥18 years attending Odense University Hospital between August and November 2020 for elective blood sampling. Results comprise a score of bleeding symptoms.
RESULTS: Mean age of included individuals were 49 years (range: 18-83), and 59% were female. Median self-ISTH-BAT score was 2 (range: 0-18) and 1 (range: 0-22) for expert-ISTH-BAT (P = .09). All organ systems had ≥90% exact score agreement between expert-ISTH-BAT and self-ISTH-BAT, except gastrointestinal bleeding (77%) and other bleedings (72%). We found an acceptable correlation (r2 = .80) between expert-ISTH-BAT and self-ISTH-BAT. The self-ISTH-BAT had 82% sensitivity and 89% specificity at the recommended cutoff for expert-BAT (female:<6; male:<4). At this cutoff, 10 had abnormal self-ISTH-BAT scores with normal expert-ISTH-BAT. Three (3%) had normal self-ISTH-BAT with abnormal expert-ISTH-BAT.
CONCLUSION: Self-ISTH-BAT can replace expert-ISTH-BAT as a screening tool for bleeding disorders in Danish individuals as only 3% were not identified with the self-ISTH-BAT tool.