Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Estudio de concordancia y equivalencia entre los cuestionarios Barthel, Lawton, HAQ y BASFI en pacientes con artritis reumatoide y espondiloartritis

Authors: Copoví Moya, María;

Estudio de concordancia y equivalencia entre los cuestionarios Barthel, Lawton, HAQ y BASFI en pacientes con artritis reumatoide y espondiloartritis

Abstract

Treball Final de Grau en Medicina. Codi: MD1158. Curs acadèmic: 2017/2018 Background: Due to the chronic and invalidating nature of rheumatic diseases, which affect the quality of life, it is vital to use instruments that help us evaluate the functional status of patients objectively. The objective of this work is to assess the equivalence between questionnaires of disability of generic type, applicable to various diseases, and specific questionnaires of rheumatic diseases. Methods: A transversal descriptive study of 214 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthropathies) in clinical practice visited in the outpatient clinics of the rheumatology service of the General University Hospital of Castellón. The patients autocompleted the Barthel and Lawton J Brody generic questionnaires, and other specific questionnaires (HAQ, BASFI). The activity of the disease was measured using the DAS28 and SDAI indices for rheumatoid arthritis and BASDAI for spondylitis. Results: There is a good simple correlation between the scales, but especially between the two general questionnaires. In these there was a significant ceiling effect, 70% of patients obtained values ≥ 95 and in Lawton J Brody 60% had values ≥ 23. The specific questionnaires had less skewed distribution. The agreement between Barthel and Lawton measured by intraclass correlation was 0.48 (p <0.01) but was not significant between these questionnaires and HAQ or BASFI. Conclusion: The Barthel and Lawton J Brody index evaluate health dimensions different from specific rheumatic questionnaires and, therefore, are not an appropriate alternative to them. Antecedentes: Debido al carácter crónico e invalidante de las enfermedades reumáticas, las cuales afectan a la calidad de vida, es vital el uso de instrumentos que nos ayuden a evaluar el estado funcional de los pacientes de forma objetiva. El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar la equivalencia entre cuestionarios de discapacidad de tipo genérico, aplicables a diversas enfermedades, y cuestionarios específicos de enfermedades reumáticas. Métodos: Se ha realizado un estudio descriptivo transversal de 214 pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas inflamatorias (artrititis reumatoide, artritis psoriásica, espondiloartropatías) en práctica clínica visitados en las consultas externas del servicio de reumatología del Hospital General Universitario de Castellón. Los pacientes autocompletaron los cuestionarios genéricos Barthel y Lawton J Brody, y otros cuestionarios específicos (HAQ, BASFI). La actividad de la enfermedad se midió usando los índices DAS28 y SDAI para artritis reumatoide y BASDAI para espondilitis. Resultados: Existe buena correlación simple entre las escalas, pero sobre todo entre los dos cuestionarios generales. En estos se produjo un efecto techo considerable, el 70% de paciente obtuvo valores ≥ 95 y en el Lawton J Brody el 60% tuvo valores ≥ 23. Mientras que los cuestionarios específicos obtuvieron una distribución más repartida. La concordancia entre Barthel y Lawton medida por correlación intraclase fue 0,48 (p<0,01) pero no fue significativa entre estos cuestionarios y HAQ o BASFI. Conclusión: El índice de Barthel y Lawton J Brody evalúan dimensiones de la salud diferentes a los cuestionarios reumáticos específicos y, por ello, no son una alternativa apta a estos.

Country
Spain
Related Organizations
Keywords

BASDAI, BASFI, Grau en Medicina, Bachelor's Degree in Medicine, Barthel, Grado en Medicina, Rheumatoid arthritis, HAQ, Artritis reumatoide, Lawton, Espondilitis anquilosante, Ankylosing spondylitis

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 21
    download downloads 77
  • 21
    views
    77
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
21
77
Green