Cited by 59Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsHealth Education and Validation

Development and validity of the DyNaChron questionnaire for chronic nasal dysfunction

Kacha, Sophie, Guillemin, Francis, Jankowski, Roger·2012·European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Abstract

Nasal symptoms are the main elements that lead to a therapeutic decision and allow for evaluating treatment effects or natural evolution. Despite availability of several questionnaires with good measurement qualities, no systematic assessment takes into account the specific physical and psychosocial consequences of each of the six main nasal symptoms, independently of the disease. We proposed to measure these symptoms with the use of a self-reporting questionnaire and to test the validity of the questionnaire in a large representative sample of patients attending outpatient rhinologic clinics. The study was conducted in two parts: (1) expert-based development and testing of the face validity of a questionnaire in French; and (2) validity testing, including construct validity by factor analysis, reproducibility by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman plots, and sensitivity to change by standardized response means, on a large sample of patients in a prospective multicenter study. DyNaChron, a questionnaire with 78 items divided into six domains and exploring both the physical and psychosocial repercussions of CND, was developed. In total, 759 patients completed the questionnaire at a first visit to a clinic, and 539 again 19.5 days later, on average. The questionnaire structure was confirmed to be composed of six domains (6 factors explaining 68.7% of the variance), with two dimensions in each domain. The questionnaire's convergent validity was confirme…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00405-011-1690-z

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The DyNaChron questionnaire has been validated for evaluating chronic nasal dysfunction.

    “It has been validated, and the need for a shorter adaptation for use in clinical practice has been suggested [37].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kacha, S., Guillemin, F., & Jankowski, R.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy (FR)
Corresponding author
Jankowski, Roger
Venue
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Published
2011-07-08
Volume
269
Issue
1
Pages
143-153
ISSN
  • 0937-4477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1434-4726
OpenAlex
W2069929469
Cited by
59
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
nasal symptoms, questionnaire development, construct validity, reproducibility, sensitivity to change, disease severity assessment, French-language questionnaire
MeSH terms
Olfaction Disorders, Chronic Disease, Cough, Facial Pain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Mucosa, Nasal Polyps, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Nasal Obstruction

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