Novel Multidisciplinary Salivary Gland Society (MSGS) Questionnaire: An International Consensus

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_BUCHHOLZER_Novel_Multidisciplinary_Salivary_Gland_Society_MSGS_Questionnaire_An_2022.PDF (502.65 KB)
Citações na Scopus
12
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY
Autores
BUCHHOLZER, Samanta
FAURE, Frederic
TCHEREMISSINOFF, Livia
HERRMANN, Francois R.
LOMBARDI, Tommaso
NG, Siu-Kwan
LOPEZ, Jean-Michel
BORNER, Urs
WITT, Robert L.
IRVINE, Robert
Citação
LARYNGOSCOPE, v.132, n.2, p.322-331, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objectives First, establishment and validation of a novel questionnaire documenting the burden of xerostomia and sialadenitis symptoms, including quality of life. Second, to compare two versions regarding the answering scale (proposed developed answers Q3 vs. 0-10 visual analogue scale Q10) of our newly developed questionnaire, in order to evaluate their comprehension by patients and their reproducibility in time. Study Design The study is a systematic review regarding the evaluation of the existing questionnaire and a cohort study regarding the validation of our new MSGS questionnaire. Materials and Methods A Multidisciplinary Salivary Gland Society (MSGS) questionnaire consisting of 20 questions and two scoring systems was developed to quantify symptoms of dry mouth and sialadenitis. Validation of the questionnaire was carried out on 199 patients with salivary pathologies (digestive, nasal, or age-related xerostomia, post radiation therapy, post radioiodine therapy, Sjogren's syndrome, IgG4 disease, recurrent juvenile parotitis, stones, and strictures) and a control group of 66 healthy volunteers. The coherence of the questionnaire's items, its reliability to distinguish patients from healthy volunteers, its comparison with unstimulated sialometry, and the time to fill both versions were assessed. Results The novel MSGS questionnaire showed good internal coherence of the items, indicating its pertinence: the scale reliability coefficients amounted to a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for Q10 and 0.90 for Q3. The time to complete Q3 and Q10 amounted, respectively, to 5.23 min (+/- 2.3 min) and 5.65 min (+/- 2.64 min) for patients and to 3.94 min (+/- 3.94 min) and 3.75 min (+/- 2.11 min) for healthy volunteers. The difference between Q3 and Q10 was not significant. Conclusion We present a novel self-administered questionnaire quantifying xerostomia and non-tumoral salivary gland pathologies. We recommend the use of the Q10 version, as its scale type is well known in the literature and it translation for international use will be more accurate. Laryngoscope, 2021
Palavras-chave
Chronic obstructive sialadenitis score (COSS), Multidisciplinary Salivary Gland Society (MSGS) questionnaire, oral dryness questionnaire (DMQ), sialadenitis, xerostomia
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/44288
Referências
  1. Aoun G, 2016, J INT SOC PREV COMMU, V6, P278, DOI 10.4103/2231-0762.186802
  2. Aubin-Pouliot A, 2016, LARYNGOSCOPE, V126, P1343, DOI 10.1002/lary.25759
  3. Aubin-Pouliot A, 2016, LARYNGOSCOPE, V126, P93, DOI 10.1002/lary.25521
  4. Benn AML, 2015, AUST DENT J, V60, P362, DOI 10.1111/adj.12238
  5. da Silva L, 2017, COMMUNITY DENT ORAL, V45, P153, DOI 10.1111/cdoe.12271
  6. de Oliveira MA, 2011, INT J PAEDIATR DENT, V21, P471, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01140.x
  7. Delagnes EA, 2017, LARYNGOSCOPE, V127, P2770, DOI 10.1002/lary.26665
  8. Delagnes EA, 2017, LARYNGOSCOPE, V127, P1073, DOI 10.1002/lary.26308
  9. Erkul E, 2016, LARYNSCOPE INVESTIG, V1, P140, DOI 10.1002/lio2.33
  10. Falcao DP, 2013, REV BRAS REUMATOL, V53, P525, DOI [10.1016/j.rbr.2013.03.001, 10.1016/j.rbre.2013.03.001]
  11. Field EA, 1997, BRIT J ORAL MAX SURG, V35, P96, DOI 10.1016/S0266-4356(97)90683-5
  12. Gallo A, 2017, ACTA OTORHINOLARYNGO, V37, P148, DOI 10.14639/0392-100X-1605
  13. Gandek, 2001, SCORE INTERPRET SING
  14. Guggenheimer J, 2003, J AM DENT ASSOC, V134, P61, DOI 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0018
  15. Hong X, 2017, BRIT J ORAL MAX SURG, V55, P179, DOI 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.10.021
  16. Hopcraft MS, 2010, AUST DENT J, V55, P238, DOI 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01229.x
  17. Lofgren Christina Diogo, 2012, BMC Oral Health, V12, P29, DOI 10.1186/1472-6831-12-29
  18. Mandel L, 2017, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V75, P2379, DOI 10.1016/j.joms.2017.04.008
  19. NAVAZESH M, 1992, J DENT RES, V71, P1363, DOI 10.1177/00220345920710070301
  20. NAVAZESH M, 1993, ANN NY ACAD SCI, V694, P72, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb18343.x
  21. Nederfors T, 2000, Adv Dent Res, V14, P48
  22. Porter SR, 2010, ORAL DIS, V16, P501, DOI 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01745.x
  23. Robinson K, 1996, ANN OTO RHINOL LARYN, V105, P415, DOI 10.1177/000348949610500601
  24. Saleh J, 2015, ARCH ORAL BIOL, V60, P242, DOI 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.10.004
  25. Slade G D, 1994, Community Dent Health, V11, P3
  26. Slade GD, 1997, COMMUNITY DENT ORAL, V25, P284, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
  27. Thomson WM, 2007, GERODONTOLOGY, V24, P30, DOI 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2007.00137.x
  28. Thomson WM, 1999, COMMUNITY DENT HLTH, V16, P12
  29. van der Putten GJ, 2011, CLIN ORAL INVEST, V15, P185, DOI 10.1007/s00784-010-0382-1
  30. Vitali C, 2002, ANN RHEUM DIS, V61, P554, DOI 10.1136/ard.61.6.554
  31. WARE JE, 1992, MED CARE, V30, P473, DOI 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/28