Premium
Critical Appraisal of Studies Measuring Quality of Life in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Author(s) -
Adunuri Nikesh Reddy,
Feldman Brian Michael
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
arthritis care and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.032
H-Index - 163
eISSN - 2151-4658
pISSN - 2151-464X
DOI - 10.1002/acr.22514
Subject(s) - medicine , psycinfo , quality of life (healthcare) , health related quality of life , physical therapy , critical appraisal , medline , face validity , arthritis , juvenile rheumatoid arthritis , psychometrics , clinical psychology , gerontology , alternative medicine , disease , pathology , nursing , political science , law
Objective To critically evaluate studies purporting to measure quality of life (QOL) or health‐related QOL (HRQOL) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) by assessing the face validity of studies via a predefined set of criteria based on Gill and Feinstein (1994). Methods Systematic review was conducted of studies in Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo purporting to measure QOL or HRQOL in JIA. Studies were evaluated based on a set of 8 yes/no criteria set forth by Gill and Feinstein in 1994. Results Thirty‐four of 50 studies (68%) purported to measure HRQOL, 13 of 50 (26%) measured QOL, and 3 of 50 (6%) measured both QOL and HRQOL. The descriptive analysis of studies is as follows: 22 of 50 studies (44%) explained and defined the authors' meaning of QOL or HRQOL, 42 of 50 studies (84%) stated and explained the domains of the instruments used to measure QOL and HRQOL, authors gave reasons for using a particular instrument in 25 of 50 studies (50%), 14 of 50 studies (28%) asked the patients to give their own global rating, 4 of 50 study authors (8%) tried to differentiate QOL from HRQOL, 5 of 50 authors (10%) provided an opportunity for patients to add items to an instrument, 30 of 50 study authors (60%) reported providing the patients with an opportunity to rate items of importance, and 18 of 50 studies (36%) reported an overall composite score for QOL or HRQOL. Conclusion Our results show that the face validity of studies measuring QOL in JIA is not up to the standards and recommendations set forth by Gill and Feinstein in 1994.