AIM: We aimed to test validity and reliability of Malay language translations of GERDQ and QOLRAD in a primary care setting.
METHODS: The questionnaires were first translated into the Malay language (GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M). Patients from primary care clinics with suspected GERD were recruited to complete GERDQ-M, QOLRAD-M, and Malay-translated 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36 or SF-36-M), and underwent endoscopy and 24-h pH-impedance test.
RESULTS: A total of 104 (mean age 47.1 years, women 51.9%) participants were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity for GERDQ-M cut-off score ≥8 were 90.2 and 77.4%, respectively. Based on this cut-off score, 54.7% had a high probability of GERD diagnosis. GERD-M score ≥8 vs. < 8 was associated with erosive esophagitis (p < 0.001), hiatus hernia (p = 0.03), greater DeMeester score (p = 0.001), and Zerbib scores for acid refluxes (p < 0.001) but not non-acid refluxes (p = 0.1). Mean total scores of QOLRAD-M and SF-36-M were correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.001). GERDQ-M ≥8, erosive esophagitis, and DeMeester ≥14.72 were associated with impaired QOLRAD-M in all domains (all p < 0.02) but this was not seen with SF-36.
CONCLUSIONS: GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M are valid and reliable tools applicable in a primary care setting.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in two tertiary centres. A forward and backward translation was conducted for the QOD. The translated questionnaire was distributed to subjects with self-reported smell disorders on days 1 and 7. Internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability was tested with an intraclass correlation coefficient. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test construct validity.
RESULTS: A total of 375 participants were recruited, 52 dropped out and 323 completed the questionnaire a second time. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.537 for parosmia (P), 0.892 for life quality (LQ), 0.637 for sincerity (S) and 0.865 for visual analogue score (VAS). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for domain scores was > 0.9, while the ICC for all items was good to excellent. A three-factor model for mQOD showed an acceptable fit with indices chi-square value (CMIN)/degree of freedom (DF) = 3.332, Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) = 0.923, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.939, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.079 and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.0574.
CONCLUSION: The mQOD is a valid and reliable tool for assessing OD in patients.