Cited by 180Gastrointestinal motility and disordersHealth Education and ValidationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Validation of a specific quality of life questionnaire for functional digestive disorders

Open access
Chassany, O, Marquis, P, Scherrer, B, Read, N W, Finger, T, Bergmann, J F, Fraitag, B, Geneve, J +1 more·1999·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome are suitable conditions for assessment of quality of life. Their similarities justify the elaboration of a single specific questionnaire for the two conditions. AIMS: To examine the process leading to the validation of the psychometric properties of the functional digestive disorders quality of life questionnaire (FDDQL). METHODS: Initially, the questionnaire was given to 154 patients, to assess its acceptability and reproducibility, analyse its content, and reduce the number of items. Its responsiveness was tested during two therapeutic trials which included 428 patients. The questionnaire has been translated into French, English, and German. The psychometric validation study was conducted in France, United Kingdom, and Germany by 187 practitioners. A total of 401 patients with dyspepsia or irritable bowel syndrome, defined by the Rome criteria, filled in the FDDQL and generic SF-36 questionnaires. RESULTS: The structure of the FDDQL scales was checked by factorial analysis. Its reliability was expressed by a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.94. Assessment of its discriminant validity showed that the more severe the functional digestive disorders, the more impaired the quality of life (p<0.05). Concurrent validity was supported by the correlation found between the FDDQL and SF-36 questionnaire scales. The final version of the questionnaire contains 43 items belonging to eight domains. CONCLUSIONS: The properties of the FDDQL questionnaire, available in French, English, and German, make it appropriate for use in clinical trials designed to evaluate its responsiveness to treatment among patients with dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome.

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 · 10.1136/gut.44.4.527

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [6]6. Drossman DA, Li Z, Andruzzi E, et al. Householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, socio- demography, and health impact. Dig Dis Sci 1993;38:1569- 80.
  2. [12]12. Chassany O, Geneve J, Abitbol JL, et al. Specific quality of life questionnaire in irritable bowel syndrome. EVect of fedotozine [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1995;108:A581.
  3. [14]14. Thompson WG, Creed F, Drossman DA, et al. Functional bowel disease and functional abdominal pain. Gastroenterol- ogy International 1992;5:75-91.
  4. [24]24. Wiklund I, Glise H, Lauritsen K, et al. A placebo-controlled comparison of the eVectiveness of omeprazole in relieving dyspeptic symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with functional dyspepsia [abstract]. Gastroenterol- ogy 1997;112:A330.
  5. [26]26. Danquechin Dorval E, Delvaux M, et al. Profil et évolution du syndrome de l'intestin irritable. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1994;18:145-50.
  6. [29]29. Trus TL, Laycock WS, Branum GD, et al. Quality of life scores correlate poorly with subjective and objective meas- urements of gastroesophageal reflux [abstract]. Gastroenter- ology 1997;112:A1480.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chassany, O., Marquis, P., Scherrer, B., Read, N. W., Finger, T., Bergmann, J. F., Fraitag, B., Geneve, J., & Caulin, C.
Affiliations
  • Northern General Hospital (GB)
  • aService de Médecine, Hôpital Lariboisière, 75010 Paris, France, bMAPI Values, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France, cInstitut de Recherche Jouveinal, 3–9 rue de la Loge, 94265 Fresnes, France, dNorthern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK, eQuali-team, Frankfurter Strasse 47, D 35037 Marburg, Germany
Corresponding author
Chassany, O
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-04-01
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
527-533
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2132771991
Cited by
180
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
functional digestive disorders, quality of life, dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, psychometric validation, questionnaire translation, responsiveness, SF-36, factor structure, discriminant validity, concurrent validity, Rome criteria
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Colonic Diseases, Functional, Double-Blind Method, Dyspepsia, Female, France, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

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