Cited by 67Ophthalmology and Eye DisordersOcular Disorders and TreatmentsMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma

Validity and reliability of the TED-QOL: a new three-item questionnaire to assess quality of life in thyroid eye disease

Fayers, T., Dolman, P. J.·2011·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

AIM: To develop and test a user-friendly questionnaire for rapidly assessing quality of life (QOL) in thyroid eye disease (TED). METHODS: A three-item questionnaire, the TED-QOL, was designed and compared to the 16-item Graves Ophthalmopathy (GO)-QOL and the nine-item GO-Quality of Life Scale (QLS). 100 patients with TED were administered all three questionnaires on two occasions. Results were compared to clinical severity scores (Vision, Inflammation, Strabismus, Appearance (VISA) classification). Main outcomes were construct and criterion validity, test-retest reliability, duration, comprehension and completion rates. TED-QOL correlated strongly with the other questionnaires for corresponding items (Pearson correlation: appearance 0.71, 0.62; functioning 0.69, 0.66; overall QOL 0.53). Test-retest analysis demonstrated good reliability for all three questionnaires (intraclass correlations: TED-QOL 0.81, 0.74, 0.87; GO-QOL 0.81, 0.82; GO-QLS 0.74, 0.86, 0.67). TED-QOL was significantly faster to complete (1.6 min vs GO-QOL 3.1 min, GO-QLS 2.7 min, p<0.0001) and had a higher completion rate (100% vs GO-QOL 78%, GO-QLS 94%). There was only moderate correlation between items on all three questionnaires and VISA scores. CONCLUSION: The TED-QOL is rapid and easy to complete and analyse and has similar validity and reliability to longer questionnaires. All questionnaires showed only moderate correlation with disease severity, emphasising the discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments and the importance of measuring both.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300487

Cites

13 of 13 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fayers, T., & Dolman, P. J.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Dolman, P. J.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-09-27
Volume
95
Issue
12
Pages
1670-1674
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2165454835
Cited by
67
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of British Columbia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Ophthalmology and Eye Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Ocular Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Myasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Keywords
Graves' ophthalmopathy, quality of life, questionnaire development, construct validity, test-retest reliability, disease severity, patient-reported outcomes, questionnaire completion time
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Disease Progression, Graves Ophthalmopathy

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