Development and evaluation of the Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History questionnaire in patients with claudication

被引:18
|
作者
Ouedraogo, Nafi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chanut, Myriam [4 ]
Aubourg, Marion [5 ]
Le Hello, Claire [6 ]
Hidden, Valerie [7 ]
Audat, Gaelle [3 ]
Harbonnier, Martin [3 ]
Abraham, Pierre [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nantes Angers Le Mans Univ, CNRS, UMR 6214, Angers, France
[2] Univ Angers, Sch Med, INSERM, U1083, Angers, France
[3] Univ Hosp, Lab Vasc Invest, 4 Rue Larrey, F-49033 Angers 09, France
[4] Angiology, Aubenas, France
[5] Mutualite Francaise Indre Touraine, Ballan Mire, France
[6] Univ Hosp, Caen, France
[7] Hop Wattrelos, Wattrelos, France
关键词
PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL-DISEASE; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; IMPAIRMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; VALIDATION; CAPACITY; TRANSLATION; PERFORMANCE; DISTANCE; SPEED;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvs.2013.03.039
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) is used to estimate walking impairment in patients with peripheral artery disease; however, it faces frequent errors when self-completed and is complex to score. We aimed to validate an alternative, easily scored four-item tool, the Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History (WELCH) questionnaire. Methods: The WIQ and WELCH were prospectively tested in five centers. We studied 434 patients, among which 298 had a treadmill test (3.2 km/h; 10% slope) to determine their maximum walking time (MWT), and 30 were seen twice during the study period. Results: After self-completion, we found at least one error in 177 WIQ (40.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3%-45.5%) vs 56 WELCH (12.9%; 95% CI, 10.1%-16.4%) questionnaires (P < .0001). When scoring only questionnaires without missing or duplicate answers, 267 WIQ (61.5%; 95% CI, 56.9%-66.0%) vs 393 WELCH (90.6%; 95% CI, 87.4%-93.0%) questionnaires could be scored (P < .001). The median MWT was 233 seconds (interquartile range, 133-654 seconds) for the 298 patients who had a treadmill test. When the 296 patients who had both questionnaire scores available were studied, no difference was found between the Pearson r coefficient of correlation of the WIQ (r = 0.615) and the WELCH (r = 0.653) with MWT (P = .211). In the 30 patients who completed the WELCH twice, correlation was r = 0.839 (P < .001) between the two scores in 22 nonrevascularized patients, and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.830 +/- 0.105 (P < .01) to discriminate the eight revascularized from the 22 nonrevascularized patients. Conclusions: The WELCH questionnaire is a simple tool to estimate walking limitation in patients with suspected peripheral artery disease. It is easily scored by mental calculation. It may help to standardize the estimation of walking limitation in routine clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:981 / 988
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [21] Development of a Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Walking in Patients with Mild Ischemic Stroke
    Kawajiri, Hiroyuki
    Adachi, Takuji
    Kono, Yuji
    Yamada, Sumio
    JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2019, 28 (02): : 317 - 324
  • [22] Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hypoglycemia Perspectives Questionnaire in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
    Kawata, Ariane K.
    Wilson, Hilary
    Ong, Siew Hwa
    Kulich, Karoly
    Coyne, Karin
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 9 (05): : 395 - 407
  • [23] Development and Evaluation of the Psychosocial Adaptation Questionnaire among Patients with Chronic Skin Disease
    Zhang, Xiu-jie
    Xu, Hui
    Wang, Ai-ping
    DERMATOLOGY, 2021, 237 (04) : 641 - 648
  • [24] Development and Evaluation of a Korean Version of a Thyroid-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Scale in Thyroid Cancer Patients
    Ryu, Chang Hwan
    Park, Boram
    Ryu, Junsun
    Ryu, Youn Mi
    Jo, Seong Ae
    Lee, You Jin
    Lee, Eun-Kyung
    Hwangbo, Yul
    Joo, Jungnam
    Jung, Yuh-Seog
    CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2018, 50 (02): : 405 - 415
  • [25] Development and psychometric evaluation of a lymphoedema self-management behaviour questionnaire for breast cancer patients
    Wei, Xiaoxia
    Lu, Qian
    Shen, Aomei
    Fu, Xin
    Zhang, Lichuan
    Wang, Yujie
    Wang, Yingxin
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2022, 31 (06)
  • [26] The development of the Screening of Visual Complaints questionnaire for patients with neurodegenerative disorders: Evaluation of psychometric features in a community sample
    Huizinga, Famke
    Heutink, Joost
    de Haan, Gera A.
    van der Lijn, Iris
    van der Feen, Fleur E.
    Vrijling, Anne C. L.
    Melis-Dankers, Bart J. M.
    de Vries, Stefanie M.
    Tucha, Oliver
    Koerts, Janneke
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (04):
  • [27] Enhancing Clinical History Taking Through the Implementation of a Streamlined Electronic Questionnaire System at a Pediatric Headache Clinic: Development and Evaluation Study
    Cho, Jaeso
    Han, Ji Yeon
    Cho, Anna
    Yoo, Sooyoung
    Lee, Ho-Young
    Kim, Hunmin
    JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2024, 12
  • [28] Development and Preliminary Validation of the Questionnaire "Evaluation of the Constitution of Social Circles" in Patients Treated for Cancer of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract
    Balaguer, Mathieu
    Pommee, Timothy
    Pinquier, Julien
    Farinas, Jerome
    Woisard, Virginie
    Sordes, Florence
    FOLIA PHONIATRICA ET LOGOPAEDICA, 2023, 75 (01) : 52 - 66
  • [29] The Multiligament Quality of Life Questionnaire Development and Evaluation of Test-Retest Reliability and Validity in Patients With Multiligament Knee Injuries
    Chahal, Jaskarndip
    Whelan, Daniel B.
    Jaglal, Susan B.
    Smith, Peter
    MacDonald, Peter B.
    Levy, Bruce A.
    Davis, Aileen M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (12): : 2906 - 2916
  • [30] Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the CKD-MBD Knowledge and Behavior (CKD-MBD-KB) Questionnaire for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease
    Shi, Yue-xian
    Si, Wei
    Liu, Jun-duo
    Gao, Min
    Wang, Si-yuan
    Cheng, Mei
    Zhao, Yue
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2016, 51 (03) : 557 - +