皮肤病生活质量指数（DLQI）、DLQI-Relevant和Skindex-16测量特性的比较研究。,British Journal of Dermatology

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Br. J. Dermatol. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

皮肤病生活质量指数（DLQI）、DLQI-Relevant和Skindex-16测量特性的比较研究。
British Journal of Dermatology ( IF 11.0 ) Pub Date : 2021-11-24 , DOI: 10.1111/bjd.20765
Á Szabó _{1,

2} , V Brodszky ₁ , F Rencz ₁

Affiliation

背景皮肤病学生活质量指数 (DLQI) 和 Skindex-16 是最常用的皮肤病学特定健康相关生活质量 (HRQoL) 工具。DLQI 有两种常见的评分方法，原始和 DLQI-Relevant (DLQI-R) 修改。目前缺乏对 DLQI、DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 的测量特性的直接比较。目标我们旨在比较 DLQI、DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 的测量特性。方法我们分析了 2020 年初在匈牙利进行的一项横断面调查中 618 名自我报告的医生诊断为皮肤病的患者的数据。比较了 DLQI、DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 的天花板和地板效应、信息量，收敛效度和已知组效度。结果平均DLQI，DLQI-R和Skindex-16总分分别为3·76±5·03、4·11±5·34和29·36±26·62。在 DLQI/DLQI-R 总分为零的患者中，64% 的患者报告 Skindex-16 存在问题。总体而言，23-38% 对 DLQI 项目 3（购物/家庭/园艺）、7（工作/学习）、8（人际关系问题）和 9（性困难）回答“不相关”的患者报告了他们相应的 Skindex 问题-16 项。Skindex-16（0·85）的平均相对信息量（香农均匀度指数）最高，其次是DLQI-R（0·66）和DLQI（0·54）。DLQI、DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 表现出相似的收敛效度。DLQI 能够根据整体皮肤相关 HRQoL 损伤更好地区分已知患者组，而 DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 在自我感知健康状况方面表现更好。结论 Skindex-16 在捕捉 HRQoL 轻度损伤方面似乎比 DLQI/DLQI-R 更敏感。我们的研究结果有助于更全面地了解 DLQI、DLQI-R 和 Skindex-16 之间的差异，并支持为临床和研究目的明智地选择仪器。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

A comparative study on the measurement properties of Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), DLQI-Relevant and Skindex-16.

BACKGROUND Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Skindex-16 are among the most commonly used dermatology-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments. DLQI has two common scoring methods, the original and the DLQI-Relevant (DLQI-R) modification. Head-to-head comparisons of the measurement properties of the DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 are currently lacking. OBJECTIVES We aim to compare the measurement properties of the DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16. METHODS We analysed data from 618 patients with self-reported physician-diagnosed dermatological conditions from a cross-sectional survey carried out in Hungary in early 2020. DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 were compared in terms of ceiling and floor effects, informativity, convergent validity and known-group validity. RESULTS Mean DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 total scores were 3·76 ± 5·03, 4·11 ± 5·34 and 29·36 ± 26·62, respectively. Among patients with a DLQI/DLQI-R total score of zero, 64% reported problems on Skindex-16. Overall, 23-38% of patients with 'not relevant' responses on DLQI items 3 (shopping/home/gardening), 7 (working/studying), 8 (interpersonal problems) and 9 (sexual difficulties) reported problems on their corresponding Skindex-16 items. Average relative informativity (Shannon's evenness index) was the highest for Skindex-16 (0·85), followed by DLQI-R (0·66) and DLQI (0·54). DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 demonstrated similar convergent validity. DLQI was able to better discriminate between known groups of patients based on overall skin-related HRQoL impairment, whereas DLQI-R and Skindex-16 performed better with respect to self-perceived health status. CONCLUSIONS Skindex-16 seems to be more sensitive than DLQI/DLQI-R in capturing mild impairment in HRQoL. Our findings help to provide a fuller understanding of the difference between DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 and support the informed choice of instrument for clinical and research purposes.

更新日期：2021-11-01

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊新发论文本刊介绍/投稿指南