MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389246922 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-182449

Quality of Life in Childhood Immune Thrombocytopenia: Revision of the Kids' ITP Tools (KIT)

2023· article· en· W4389246922 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Vinita Dhir, Caseng Zhang, Nick Barrowman, Ewa Sucha, Rachael F. Grace, John D. Grainger, Nancy L. Young, Robert J. Klaassen

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésImmune thrombocytopeniaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)PediatricsFamily medicineNursingImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction New treatment approaches have emerged for pediatric ITP over the years, potentially impacting the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of affected individuals. The Kids' ITP Tools (KIT) (Child self-report/Parent proxy-report and Parent impact-report) have gained international attention as valid tools for monitoring HRQoL in children with ITP and the impact on their parents. The questionnaires were recently updated to reflect changes in clinical management. However, it has also become common practice to evaluate the impact of new therapies using domain scales of QOL (i.e., sub-categories), which are not yet available for the KIT. Thus, the primary objective of this study was to establish domain scales for the KIT 2.0 that accurately quantify and identify specific aspects of HRQoL that are impacted in children with ITP and their parents. Methods The study was conducted in two sequential phases. Phase 1 involved ITP experts identifying key conceptual domains for the KIT questionnaires based on their clinical experiences. An online survey (“card sort survey”) was distributed, and experts sorted the current KIT 2.0 questions into domains, with domain headings suggested as well. Phase 2 involved a statistical approach (i.e., exploratory factor analysis (EFA)) to yield models with different number of domains. Data from children with ITP and their parents was utilized to develop the models, and the data was specifically from three previous international multicentre studies: ITP Consortium of North America (ICON1 study), UK Children's Hospital (UK ITP Paediatric Registry), and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (KIT international validation). Results In Phase 1, 24 experts completed the Child self-report card-sort survey, while 12 experts completed the Parent impact survey. There were two models that were derived for the Child Self-Report, with one having three domain scales and the other with four domain scales. The Parent Impact resulted in only one model that had three domain scales. In Phase 2, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) resulted in three models for each of the three questionnaires (Table 1), with the final models selected from the EFA and based on clinical interpretability. The four-domain model was selected for the Child Self-Report. The model had a higher Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) score and cumulative percentage of variance compared to the three-domain model. Though the cumulative percentage of variance was higher for the six-domain model, the model had two domains that each contained only two questions, which is not ideal for face validity. The final domain headings for the Child self-report were derived from the expert card sort survey: ITP Uncertainty; General symptoms; ITP challenges/disruptions; and Loss of control. The four-domain model was also selected for the Parent proxy-report on the basis of the same factors as the Child self-report. Likewise, the four-factor model had higher TLI score and relatively lower root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) compared to the three-factor. The six-factor model had an ideal RMSEA, but contained one domain that had only two questions. The final domain headings are the same as the Child self-report as the context of the questions are the same. The four-domain model was selected for the Parent impact-report. Though both the four- and six-factor models contained two domains with only two questions each, the two-factor model was not ideal clinically as the questions within each of the two domains were not all similar. The headings were also derived from the expert card-sort: ITP Uncertainty; Treatment; Functional well-being; and Activities. Conclusion The revised KIT 2.0 aims to comprehensively summarize health-related quality of life in pediatric patients with ITP and their parents. The introduction of a domain structure derived from expert- and patient-data to the KIT will enable identification of specific aspects of QOL that are affected, which is imperative given the introduction of novel pharmaceutical agents in ITP treatment.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,045

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→