Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and validity of the university of california, los angeles scleroderma clinical trial consortium gastrointestinal tract instrument

Open access
Khanna, Dinesh, Hays, Ron D., Maranian, Paul, Seibold, James R., Impens, Ann, Mayes, Maureen D., Clements, Philip J., Getzug, Terri, Fathi, Nihal, Bechtel, Amber, Furst, Daniel E.·2009·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Objective: To refine the previously developed scleroderma (systemic sclerosis [SSc]) gastrointestinal tract (GIT) instrument (SSC‐GIT 1.0). Methods: We administered the SSC‐GIT 1.0 and the Short Form 36 to 152 patients with SSc; 1 item was added to the SSC‐GIT 1.0 to assess rectal incontinence. In addition, subjects completed a rating of the severity of their GIT involvement (from very mild to very severe). Evaluation of psychometric properties included internal consistency reliability, test–retest reliability (mean time interval 1.1 weeks), and multitrait scaling analysis. Results: Study participants were mostly women (84%) and white (81%); 55% had diffuse SSc. Self‐rated severity of GIT involvement ranged from no symptoms to very mild (39%), mild (21%), moderate (31%), and severe/very severe (9%). Of an initial 53 items in the SSC‐GIT 1.0, 19 items were excluded, leaving a 34‐item revised instrument (the University of California, Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium GIT 2.0 [UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0]). Analyses supported 7 multi‐item scales: reflux, distention/bloating, diarrhea, fecal soilage, constipation, emotional well‐being, and social functioning. Test–retest reliability estimates were ≥0.68 and coefficient alphas were ≥0.67. Participants who rated their GIT disease as mild had lower scores on a 0–3 scale on all 7 scales. Symptom scales were also able to discriminate subjects with corresponding clinical GIT diagnoses. The Total GIT Score, developed by averaging 6 of 7 scales (excluding constipation), was reliable and provided greater discrimination between mild, moderate, and severe self‐rated GIT involvement than individual scales. Conclusion: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0, an improvement over the SSC‐GIT 1.0, and supports a Total GIT Score in SSc patients with GIT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.24730

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Khanna, D., Hays, R. D., Maranian, P., Seibold, J. R., Impens, A., Mayes, M. D., Clements, P. J., Getzug, T., Fathi, N., Bechtel, A., & Furst, D. E.
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08-27
Volume
61
Issue
9
Pages
1257-1263
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0123
OpenAlex
W2153802114
Cited by
247
References
1
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and validity of the university of california, los angeles scleroderma clinical trial consortium gastrointestinal tract instrument. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.24730
The paper
Khanna, D., Hays, R. D., Maranian, P., Seibold, J. R., Impens, A., Mayes, M. D., Clements, P. J., Getzug, T., Fathi, N., Bechtel, A., & Furst, D. E. (2009). Reliability and validity of the university of california, los angeles scleroderma clinical trial consortium gastrointestinal tract instrument. Arthritis Care & Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24730

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.