Cephalalgia ( IF 4.9 ) Pub Date : 2021-08-18 , DOI: 10.1177/03331024211034509 Raquel Gil-Gouveia 1 , António Gouveia Oliveira 2
Background
Several patient-reported outcome measures are available to monitor headache impact, but are those reliable in real-life clinical practice?
Methods
Two identical patient-reported outcome measures (HALT-90 and MIDAS) were applied simultaneously in each clinical visit to a series of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies for migraine and intra-individual agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficients.
Results
Our sample included 92 patients, 92.4% females, 45 years old on average. Moderate (0.50 to 0.75) and even poor (<0.50) ICC were observed in all but the first item of these patient-reported outcome measures in at least one evaluation. Over time, missing data were more frequent and no learning effect was detected.
Discussion
We observed intra-personal variation in reliability when answering patient-reported outcome measures, persisting in repeated applications, and a decrease in the motivation to respond, which should alert clinicians for these additional challenges in real-life clinical practice.
中文翻译:
PROM 是否在传递信息?对现实生活中的偏头痛患者的反思
背景
有几种患者报告的结果测量方法可用于监测头痛的影响,但这些测量方法在现实生活中的临床实践中是否可靠?
方法
在每次临床访问中同时对一系列接受单克隆抗体治疗偏头痛的患者进行了两种相同的患者报告结果测量(HALT-90 和 MIDAS),并使用组内相关系数评估了个体内一致性。
结果
我们的样本包括 92 名患者,92.4% 为女性,平均 45 岁。在至少一项评估中,除了这些患者报告的结果测量的第一项之外,所有其他项目都观察到中等(0.50 至 0.75)甚至差(<0.50)ICC。随着时间的推移,丢失的数据更加频繁,并且没有检测到学习效果。
讨论
我们在回答患者报告的结果测量时观察到个人内部的可靠性差异,坚持重复应用,以及响应动机的降低,这应该提醒临床医生在现实临床实践中的这些额外挑战。