ArticleDiabetology international2019
The revalidation of the diabetes treatment-related quality-of-life (DTR-QOL) questionnaire in Japan.
Article in Diabetology international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Registry-Based Studies of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review.Current diabetes reports · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to develop a conceptual framework for the diabetes treatment-related quality of life (DTR-QOL) and validate the new structure of the DTR-QOL.
methodsThis study was conducted in two stages. First, items were collated into similar concepts to develop a new conceptual framework for the DTR-QOL. Next, psychometric analyses were conducted. Analyses included a distribution of responses (and domains) with a focus on floor/ceiling effects, item convergent/discriminant validity, internal consistency reliability (where possible), clinical validity, known-group analysis, and concurrent validity with the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and SF-8. Known groups were evaluated using "Glycemic control in the last month", "Concerned with weight gain in the last month", "Current health status", and "Degree of communication with clinician". To evaluate the reliability of each scale, test-retest were assessed.
resultsThe DTR-QOL items were reconstructed into seven domains based on similar concepts: usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression, satisfaction, positive feelings, negative feelings, and feeling troubled. Although there were ceiling effects on most items, when patients reported having a hypoglycemic event in the last month, score distributions found fewer ceiling effects indicating that items are able to respond to clinical changes. Internal consistency reliability was met for all scales except satisfaction (
conclusionsThe restructuring of the DTR-QOL resulted in an acceptable measure with domains that are easily interpreted and allow physicians to better measure more specific impacts on their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.