MP31-17 VALIDATING THE BLADDER UTILITY SYMPTOM SCALE (BUSS): A NOVEL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE FOR ALL PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III1 Apr 2016MP31-17 VALIDATING THE BLADDER UTILITY SYMPTOM SCALE (BUSS): A NOVEL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE FOR ALL PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER Nathan Perlis, Kirstin Boehme, Munir Jamal, Karen Bremner, Shabbir Alibhai, Antonio Finelli, Paul Ritvo, Murray Krahn, Rushi Gandhi, and Girish Kulkarni Nathan PerlisNathan Perlis More articles by this author , Kirstin BoehmeKirstin Boehme More articles by this author , Munir JamalMunir Jamal More articles by this author , Karen BremnerKaren Bremner More articles by this author , Shabbir AlibhaiShabbir Alibhai More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Paul RitvoPaul Ritvo More articles by this author , Murray KrahnMurray Krahn More articles by this author , Rushi GandhiRushi Gandhi More articles by this author , and Girish KulkarniGirish Kulkarni More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1270AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Accurately measuring health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) is paramount in bladder cancer (BC) because patients face diverse treatment modalities with unique morbidities. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric validated to measure overall HRQOL for ALL BC patients does not exist. The purpose of this study was to generate a patient-driven, succinct, global HRQOL questionnaire valid and responsive for BC. METHODS Questions were created by a panel of experts based on a conceptual framework of global HRQOL in BC informed by literature review, patient focus groups and expert interviews. The Bladder Utility Symptoms Scale - psychometric (BUSS-P) was pilot tested with experts and patients using cognitive methods until saturation was reached. To determine BUSS-P validation and reliability, field testing was performed at both an academic and community hospital, the University Health Network (Toronto, ON) and Trillium Health Partners (Mississauga, ON), respectively. We used purposive sampling to accrue 117 BC patients. All BC stages (Ta to metastatic disease) were included with patients receiving all forms of treatment including intravesical therapy, surgery, radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy. Patients completed the BUSS-P and 5 other HRQOL instruments (FACT-Bl, BCI, EQ-5D, SF-36, TTO). Whole and subscale Spearmans rank correlations (rs), as well as comparisons of BUSS-P scores across known-groups were used to assess construct validity. To assess reliability, patients repeated the questionnaires at 4 weeks. RESULTS The BUSS contains 10 questions covering generic and BC-specific domains. In field testing, BUSS-P exhibited high whole scale correlation with FACT-Bl (rs=0.82, p<0.0001) and EQ-5D (rs=0.67, p<0.0001). Similarly, BUSS-P demonstrated substantial-to-high subscale correlations with EQ-5D (emotional: rs=0.71, p<0.01), FACT-Bl (physical: rs=-0.70, p<0.0001), and BCI (urinary issues: rs=-0.62, p<0.01). Median BUSS scores (M) were also significantly different (p<0.01) across patients with differing disease severity: non-muscle invasive BC (M=85.0), cystectomy (M=76.2), and metastatic BC patients (M=66.7). There was excellent test-retest reliability (ICC 0.78). Greater than 95% of respondents completed all BUSS questions, suggesting a comprehensible questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that the BUSS is a valid PRO to measure HRQOL among BC patients and is useable for patients regardless of treatment exposure including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e426 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Nathan Perlis More articles by this author Kirstin Boehme More articles by this author Munir Jamal More articles by this author Karen Bremner More articles by this author Shabbir Alibhai More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Paul Ritvo More articles by this author Murray Krahn More articles by this author Rushi Gandhi More articles by this author Girish Kulkarni More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».