Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and construct validation of the angioedema quality of life questionnaire

Weller, K., Groffik, A., Magerl, M., Tohme, N., Martus, P., Krause, K., Metz, M., Staubach, P., Maurer, M.·2012·Allergy

Abstract

Background: Recurrent angioedema is a frequent clinical problem characterized by unpredictably and rapidly occurring cutaneous and mucosal swellings. These swellings may be painful and/or disfiguring. Upper airway involvement can also lead to dyspnea and suffocation. Although the disease burden is high, there is currently no specific instrument to measure health‐related quality of life (QoL) impairment. Objective: To develop and validate the first symptom‐specific tool to assess QoL impairment in recurrent angioedema patients, adhering to established methodological recommendations. Methods: During the development phase, 29 questions (items) were generated. Subsequently, item reduction was performed by means of impact analysis and factor analysis as well as by checking for content and face validity. As a result, 17 items were selected and included in the final instrument, the Angioedema QoL Questionnaire (AE‐QoL). AE‐QoL was then tested for its validity, reliability, and influence factors. Results: One hundred and ten angioedema patients took part in the validation of AE‐QoL. AE‐QoL was found to have a four‐dimensional structure as well as a valid total score. All of its four domains (functioning, fatigue/mood, fears/shame, food) showed good levels of internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha > 0.8. Test–retesting revealed a good reliability of the instruments total score and domain scores. Gender as well as the patients' self‐rated disease activity was found to be predictors of the AE‐QoL total score. Conclusions: Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire is the first angioedema‐specific QoL questionnaire. It is a short, valid and reliable instrument that may serve as a valuable tool in future clinical studies and in routine patient care.

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 · 10.1111/all.12007

Cites

3 of 3 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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Weller, K., Groffik, A., Magerl, M., Tohme, N., Martus, P., Krause, K., Metz, M., Staubach, P., & Maurer, M.
Venue
Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-23
Volume
67
Issue
10
Pages
1289-1298
ISSN
  • 0105-4538 (ISSN-L)
  • 1398-9995
OpenAlex
W2034631606
Cited by
305
References
3
FWCI
4.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Development and construct validation of the angioedema quality of life questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/all.12007
The paper
Weller, K., Groffik, A., Magerl, M., Tohme, N., Martus, P., Krause, K., Metz, M., Staubach, P., & Maurer, M. (2012). Development and construct validation of the angioedema quality of life questionnaire. Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12007

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.