External Validation of the SF-36 Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Italian and Brazilian Populations to Select Patients With Colorectal Endometriosis for Surgery

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
9
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Autores
LAAS, Enora
ZACHAROPOULOU, Chrysoula
MONTANARI, Giulia
SERACCHIOLI, Renato
BASSI, Marco A.
BALLESTER, Marcos
DARAI, Emile
Citação
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, v.22, n.3, p.378-383, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Study Objective: To evaluate the external validity of the validated French model of the quality-of-life questionnaire (QOL) SF-36 in predicting improvement after colorectal resection for endometriosis. Design: Italian and Brazilian cohort studies (Canadian Task Force classification 11-3). Setting: Tertiary referral university hospital in Brazil and expert center in endometriosis in Italy. Patients: Patients with colorectal endometriosis from an Italian population (n = 63) and a Brazilian population (n = 151). Intervention: Laparoscopic colorectal resection for treatment of endometriosis. Measurements and Main Results: Preoperative and postoperative evaluations of the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the SF-36 were performed. Substantial improvement in PCS and MCS was observed after colorectal resection in both populations. In the Brazilian population, the receiver operating curve (ROC) (area under the curve [AUC]) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.89) for MCS and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83) for PCS, demonstrating good discrimination performance. The mean difference between the predicted and calibrated probabilities was 19.6% for MCS and 32.8% for PCS. In the Italian population, the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for PCS and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.78) for MCS. The model demonstrated poor discrimination and calibration performance for PCS (p < .001) and MCS (p = .003). The mean difference between the predicted and calibrated probabilities was 17.5% for MCS and 21.8% for PCS. Conclusion: Despite the use of validated translations of the SF-36, our results underline the limits of this tool in selection of patients for colorectal resection due to underestimation of predicted quality of life, possibly because of variations in epidemiologic characteristics of the populations. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of AAGL.
Palavras-chave
Colorectal resection, Endometriosis, Quality-of-life questionnaire, SF-36
Referências
  1. Aaronson N K, 1992, Qual Life Res, V1, P349, DOI 10.1007/BF00434949
  2. Abrao MS, 2008, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V15, P280, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.006
  3. Ballweg ML, 2004, BEST PRACT RES CL OB, V18, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2004.01.003
  4. Bassi MA, 2011, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V18, P730, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.07.014
  5. Darai E, 2005, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V192, P394, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.033
  6. Darai E, 2010, ANN SURG, V251, P1018, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d9691d
  7. Darai E, 2011, FERTIL STERIL, V95, P1903, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.018
  8. d'Argent EM, 2010, FERTIL STERIL, V94, P2441, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.033
  9. Dousset B, 2010, ANN SURG, V251, P887, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d9722d
  10. Dubernard G, 2006, HUM REPROD, V21, P1243, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dei491
  11. Dubernard G, 2008, HUM REPROD, V23, P846, DOI 10.1093/humrep/den026
  12. Emmanuel KR, 2005, CURR OPIN OBSTET GYN, V17, P399, DOI 10.1097/01.gco.0000175358.33555.ab
  13. Fanfani F, 2010, FERTIL STERIL, V94, P444, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.066
  14. Goshtasebi A, 2011, J OVARIAN RES, V4, DOI 10.1186/1757-2215-4-11
  15. Mabrouk M, 2011, HEALTH QUAL LIFE OUT, V9, DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-9-98
  16. MACAFEE CHG, 1960, J OBSTET GYNAECOL, V67, P539
  17. Meuleman C, 2014, ANN SURG, V259, P522, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828dfc5c
  18. Meuleman C, 2011, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V17, P311, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmq057
  19. Pereira RMA, 2010, CURR OPIN OBSTET GYN, V22, P344, DOI 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32833beae0
  20. PERNEGER TV, 1995, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V48, P1051, DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00227-H
  21. Redwine DB, 2001, FERTIL STERIL, V76, P358, DOI 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01913-6
  22. Roman H, 2010, HUM REPROD, V25, P890, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dep407
  23. Seracchioli R, 2007, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V114, P889, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01363.x
  24. Stepniewska A, 2009, HUM REPROD, V24, P1619, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dep083
  25. Vercellini P, 2012, REPROD BIOMED ONLINE, V24, P389, DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.01.003
  26. Vercellini P, 2009, HUM REPROD, V24, P254, DOI 10.1093/humrep/den379
  27. WARE JE, 1995, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V11, P525
  28. WEED JC, 1987, OBSTET GYNECOL, V69, P727
  29. WRIGHT SP, 1992, BIOMETRICS, V48, P1005, DOI 10.2307/2532694
  30. Yandell B. S., 1997, PRACTICAL DATA ANAL