Objective: The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) is a widely used instrument to assess cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The study aimed to test the psychometric properties... Show moreObjective: The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) is a widely used instrument to assess cognitive emotion regulation strategies. The study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the Italian short version of the CERQ (CERQ-IS). Methods: Two separate samples of 442 young adults (M-age = 21.12; SD = 3.69) and 256 adolescents (M-age = 14.81; SD = 0.59) completed the CERQ, the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) and the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate the dimensionality of the CERQ-IS. Internal consistency was analysed by calculating model-based composite reliability coefficients. Criterion and discriminant validity were gathered through the correlations with the ERQ and the MPS, respectively. Factorial invariances tests across gender and age were computed by means of multiple-group CFA. Results: CFA confirmed the nine-factor structure showing an excellent fit to the data. Except for rumination which was minimally acceptable, all subscales had an acceptable to good reliability. Criterion validity was supported by significant correlations between CERQ-IS and ERQ subscales. Discriminant validity was confirmed by meaningless correlations with the MPS facets. Configural, metric and scalar invariance were established across both grouping variables. Conclusions: The brevity of this tool and its good psychometric properties suggest that CERQ-IS could be a useful screening tool in both clinical and research practice in adolescence and young adulthood. Show less
Background: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly... Show moreBackground: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood. Methods: We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed. Results: Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73-0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60-0.67], P<0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59-0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43-0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation. Conclusions: There are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making. Show less
Background Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because... Show moreBackground Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because diagnostic performance of these tools has not been studied and might therefore impose unnecessary ERCPs, we aimed to evaluate this. Methods We established a nationwide prospective cohort of patients with suspected biliary obstruction who underwent an ERCP. We assessed the diagnostic performance of Tokyo Guidelines (TG18), Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group (DPSG) criteria, and Charcot triad relative to real-world cholangitis as the reference standard. Results 127 (16%) of 794 patients were diagnosed with real-world cholangitis. Using the TG18, DPSG, and Charcot triad, 345 (44%), 55 (7%), and 66 (8%) patients were defined as having cholangitis, respectively. Sensitivity for TG18 was 82% (95% CI 74-88) and specificity 60% (95% CI 56-63). The sensitivity for DPSG and Charcot was 42% (95% CI 33-51) and 46% (95% CI 38-56), specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99-100) and 99% (95% CI 98-100), respectively. Conclusions TG18 criteria incorrectly diagnoses four out of ten patients with real-world cholangitis, while DPSG and Charcot criteria failed to diagnose more than half of patients. As the cholangitis diagnosis has many consequences for treatment, there is a need for more accurate diagnostic tools or work-up towards ERCP. Show less
Background The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Profile-29 questionnaire is widely used worldwide, but it has not yet been validated in the Netherlands, nor in... Show moreBackground The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Profile-29 questionnaire is widely used worldwide, but it has not yet been validated in the Netherlands, nor in persons with hemophilia. Objective To validate the Dutch-Flemish version of the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.01 in adults with hemophilia. Methods Dutch males with hemophilia (all severities) completed questionnaires that contained sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the PROMIS-29, RAND-36, and the Hemophilia Activities List (HAL). Structural validity of each subscale was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was calculated for each subscale with sufficient model fit in CFA. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses about (1) correlations of each PROMIS-29 subscale with corresponding scales of RAND-36 and domains of HAL, and (2) mean differences in T-scores between subgroups with different hemophilia severities, self-reported joint impairment, and HIV infection status. We considered >= 75% of data in accordance with the hypotheses evidence for construct validity. Results In total, 770 persons with hemophilia participated in this cross-sectional study. CFA revealed sufficient structural validity for five subscales: Physical Function, Depression, Sleep Disturbance, Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, and Pain Interference. Internal consistency was high and Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 for Sleep Disturbance to 0.96 for Pain Interference. Differences between clinical subgroups were in the expected direction. Construct validity was confirmed for Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Intensity. Conclusion This study revealed sufficient evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity for most PROMIS Profile-29 subscales among people with hemophilia in the Netherlands. Show less
