Show simple item record

Initial validation of a diagnostic questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease

dc.contributor.authorShaw, Michael J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTalley, Nicholas J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBeebe, Timothy J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRockwood, Todden_US
dc.contributor.authorCarlsson, Rolfen_US
dc.contributor.authorAdlis, Susan A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFendrick, A. Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorJones, Rogeren_US
dc.contributor.authorDent, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorBytzer, Peteren_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:23:01Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:23:01Z
dc.date.issued2001-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationShaw, Michael J . ; Talley, Nicholas J . ; Beebe, Timothy J . ; Rockwood, Todd; Carlsson, Rolf; Adlis, Susan; Fendrick, A. Mark; Jones, Roger; Dent, John; Bytzer, Peter (2001). "Initial validation of a diagnostic questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease." The American Journal of Gastroenterology 96(1): 52-57. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72526>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0002-9270en_US
dc.identifier.issn1572-0241en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72526
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11197287&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBrief, reliable, and valid self-administered questionnaires could facilitate the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care. We report the development and validation of such an instrument. Methods Content validity was informed by literature review, expert opinion, and cognitive interviewing of 50 patients resulting in a 22-item survey. For psychometric analyses, primary care patients completed the new questionnaire at enrollment and at intervals ranging from 3 days to 3 wk. Multitrait scaling, test–retest reliability, and responsiveness were assessed. Predictive validity analyses of all scales and items used specialty physician diagnosis as the “gold standard.” Results Iterative factor analyses yielded three scales of four items each including heartburn, acid regurgitation, and dyspepsia. Multitrait scaling criteria including internal consistency, item interval consistency, and item discrimination were 100% satisfied. Test–retest reliability was high in those reporting stable symptoms. Scale scores significantly changed in those reporting a global change. Regressing specialty physician diagnosis on the three scales revealed significant effects for two scales (heartburn and regurgitation). Combining the two significant scales enhanced the strength of the model. Symptom response to self-directed treatment with nonprescription antisecretory medications was highly predictive of the diagnosis also, although the item demonstrated poor validity and reliability. Conclusions A brief, simple 12-item questionnaire demonstrated validity and reliability and seemed to be responsive to change for reflux and dyspeptic symptoms.en_US
dc.format.extent57741 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights2001 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterologyen_US
dc.titleInitial validation of a diagnostic questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux diseaseen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherHealth Research Center, Park Nicollet Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, The University of Sydney, The Nepean Hospital, Penrith, Australiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherClinical Outcomes Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAstraZeneca, MÖlndal, Swedenen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Primary Care and Public Health Services, Guy's, King's, and St. Thomas' School of Medicine, London, UKen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace Adelaide, Australiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmarken_US
dc.identifier.pmid11197287en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72526/1/j.1572-0241.2001.03451.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03451.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe American Journal of Gastroenterologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones R.H., Hungin P.A.S., Phillips J., et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care in Europe: Clinical presentation and endoscopic findings. Eur J Gen Pract 1995; 1: 149 – 154.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFass R., Ofman J.J., Gralnek I.M., et al. Clinical and economic assessment of the omeprazole test in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2161 – 2168.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDent J., Brun J., Fendrick A.M., et al. An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management—The Genval Workshop Report. Gut 1999; 44 ( suppl 2 ): S1 – S16.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFass R., Fennerty M.B., Ofman J.J., et al. The clinical and economic value of a short course of omeprazole in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Gastroenterology 1998; 115: 42 – 49.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchenk B.E., Kuipers E.J., Klinkenberg-Knol E.C., et al. Omeprazole as a diagnostic tool in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 1997 – 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw M.J., Talley N.J., Adlis S.A., et al. Development of a digestive health status instrument. I: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability in a primary care population. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 1067 – 1078.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDimenÄs E., Glise H., HallerbÄck B., et al. Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. An evaluation of treatment regimens?. Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; 28: 681 – 687.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMathias S.D., Castell D.O., Elkin E.P., et al. Health-related quality of life of patients with acute erosive reflux esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 1996; 41: 2123 – 2129.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung T.L., Kirchodoerfer L.J., Osterhaus J.T. A development and validation process for a disease-specific quality of life instrument. Drug Inf J 1996; 30: 185 – 193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLocke G.R., Talley N.J., Weaver A.L., et al. A new questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 539 – 547.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarlsson R., Dent J., Bolling-Sternevald E., et al. The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the assessment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998; 33: 1023 – 1029.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw M.J., Beebe T., Adlis SA, et al. Development of a digestive health status instrument. II. Assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000 ( in press ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDillman D.A. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method New York: John Wiley, 1978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407 – 415.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLandis L.M., Algina J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159 – 174.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart A.L., Hays R.D., Ware J.E. Methods of constructing health status measures. In: Stewart A.L., Ware J.E., eds. Measuring functioning and well-being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 67 – 85.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297 – 334.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNunnally J.C., Bernstein I.H. Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTalley N.J., Zinsmeister A.R., Schleck A.D., et al. Dyspepsia and dyspepsia subgroups: A population-based study. Gastroenterology 1992; 102: 1259 – 1267.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobins L.N., Helzer J.E., Croughan J., et al. National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Its history, characteristics and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1981; 38: 381 – 389.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWittchen H. Reliability and validity studies of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview: A critical review. J Psych Res 1994; 28: 57 – 84.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.