The first section of this thesis aims to provide an international perspective on the characterisation of patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Through different aspects of the classification... Show moreThe first section of this thesis aims to provide an international perspective on the characterisation of patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Through different aspects of the classification criteria, we review the importance of global applicability of these criteria. As classification criteria ensure the same patients are selected for participation in clinical trials worldwide, global applicability would allow for direct comparisons between studies executed in different geographical regions. Likewise, standardised assessment and reporting of results from clinical trials allows for direct comparisons between studies investigating different treatments, or identical treatments in populations from a different ethnicity or background, which is debated in the second part of this thesis. Herein, we describe the process of the development of the core set for axial spondyloarthritis, specifically by updating the domains of the ASAS-OMERACT core set for ankylosing spondylitis. In the final part of this thesis, we discuss health-related quality of life and work and activity impairments in patients with chronic back pain suspected of axial spondyloarthritis. Show less
Objectives. Uniform evaluation of treatment effect on the quality of voice in adductor spasmodic dysphonia (AdSD) is challenging due to the broad variety of available outcome measurement... Show moreObjectives. Uniform evaluation of treatment effect on the quality of voice in adductor spasmodic dysphonia (AdSD) is challenging due to the broad variety of available outcome measurement instruments (OMIs). The European Laryngological Society categorized five types of measurement domains for voice quality evaluations: patient-reported outcome measures, perceptual analyses, acoustic analyses, visual analyses, and aerodynamic measurements. The aim of this study was to propose a core outcome set (COS) for these domains, enabling systematic assessments of treatment effects on the quality of voice in patients with AdSD.Methods. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible studies published before July 2019. The results were systematically analyzed following the protocol of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The proposed COS is based on the prevalence of OMIs, quality of the included studies, criteria for good measurement properties, and correlations to other OMI domains.Results. A total of 76 articles were included, with nearly all studies and OMIs found to be of moderate or low quality. The 19 studies that reported on the correlation of OMIs demonstrated conflicting results. Appraising the best available evidence, our proposed COS consisted of patient-reported outcome measures (voice handicap index), perceptual measurements (grade, roughness, breathiness, strain, and voice breaks) and acoustic measurements (voice breaks, voice onset time, aperiodicity, and multiparameter algorithms).Conclusion. A review of OMIs evaluating treatment effects in AdSD was conducted. Based on this review, a uniform COS was proposed. However, evidence for the selected instruments was limited. Further exploration into the validity and reliability of OMIs for AdSD is recommended. Show less
Boel, A.; Navarro-Compan, V.; Landewe, R.; Heijde, D. van der 2021
Objectives: There are two different approaches to involve participants in consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey: (1) invitation to every round independent of response to the previous round ("all... Show moreObjectives: There are two different approaches to involve participants in consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey: (1) invitation to every round independent of response to the previous round ("all-rounds'') and (2) invitation only when responded to the previous round ("respondents-only''). This study aimed to investigate the effect of invitation approach on the response rate and final outcome of a Delphi survey.Study Design and Setting: Both experts (N = 188) and patients (N = 188) took part in a Delphi survey to update the core outcome set (COS) for axial spondyloarthritis. A study with 1:1 allocation to two experimental groups (ie, "all-rounds'' [N = 187] and "respondents-only'' [N = 189]) was built-in.Results: The overall response rate was lower in the "respondents-only group'' (46%) compared to the "all-rounds group'' (61%). All domains that were selected for inclusion in the COS by the "respondents-only group'' were also selected by the "all-rounds group.'' Additionally, the four most important domains were identical between groups after the final round, with only minor differences in the other domains.Conclusion: Inviting panel members who missed a round to a subsequent round will lead to a better representation of opinions of the originally invited panel and reduces the chance of false consensus, while it does not influence the final outcome of the Delphi. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
