Psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional Uraemic Pruritus in Dialysis patients (UP-Dial) scale: comparison of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients with chronic pruritus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for dialysis patients with chronic pruritus are urgently needed. However, no known, well-validated multidimensional tools have been investigated to measure pruritus symptoms in dialysis patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the psychometric properties of a multidimensional tool of chronic pruritus, the Uraemic Pruritus in Dialysis patients (UP-Dial) 14-item scale, by comparing haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis modality. METHODS: This validation study used data from the Thai Renal Outcomes Research-Uraemic Pruritus, a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study. Data for this study were collected from 1 February 2019 to 31 May 2022. The adult sample of 226 haemodialysis and 327 peritoneal dialysis patients fulfilled the criteria of chronic pruritus based on the International Forum for the Study of Itch. Psychometric properties of the UP-Dial included validity and reliability, as measured across haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Patients completed a set of anchor-based measurement tools, including global itching, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQoL-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L), Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), global fatigue, Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). RESULTS: From the patient's perspective, face validity was satisfactory for both dialysis samples. Psychometric analyses of the UP-Dial for each dialysis sample had good convergent validity. Spearman rho correlations indicate a positively strong correlation (0.73-0.74) with global itching, a positively moderate correlation (0.33-0.58) with DLQI, PSQI, global fatigue, SSS-8 and PHQ-9, and a negatively moderate correlation (-0.39 to -0.58) with EQ-5D-5L and KDQOL-36. The discriminant validity was satisfactory with a group of moderate and severe burden of pruritus for both dialysis samples. For scale reliability, the UP-Dial revealed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.89 and McDonald's ω = 0.90) and reproducibility (intraclass correlation 0.84-0.85) for both dialysis samples. Regarding psychometric properties, no statistically significant differences between dialysis samples were observed (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings reaffirm good measurement properties of the UP-Dial 14-item scale in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients with chronic pruritus. These suggest a transferability of the UP-Dial as a PRO measure in clinical trial and practice settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".