From Data to Clinical Decisions in Chronic Wound Care: Evaluation of the Interpretability, Minimal Important Difference, and Smallest Detectable Change of the Wound-QoL-14 in a Spanish Population

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
Celia Horcajada-Reales, Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, Matthias Augustin, Carmen Selva-Sevilla
{"title":"From Data to Clinical Decisions in Chronic Wound Care: Evaluation of the Interpretability, Minimal Important Difference, and Smallest Detectable Change of the Wound-QoL-14 in a Spanish Population","authors":"Celia Horcajada-Reales,&nbsp;Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo,&nbsp;Matthias Augustin,&nbsp;Carmen Selva-Sevilla","doi":"10.1111/iwj.71065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire has proven to be a valid instrument for assessing patients with chronic wounds. However, cutoff scores are not established, and the smallest detectable change and the minimal important difference have not been defined. We aimed to assess the interpretability, smallest detectable change and the minimal important difference of the Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire in a Spanish population with chronic wounds. At baseline, patients responded to a 5-Likert global anchor question about how much their wounds had been a problem, and bands of severity were calculated. At a re-test phase they responded to a 7-Likert anchor question about the severity of the change in wound status, and smallest detectable change and minimal important difference were calculated using a combination of anchor-based and distribution-based methods. At baseline, stratification of 323 patients according to simplified bands of severity (0–0.25/0.26–1.00/1.01–2.00/2.01–3.00/3.01–4) showed a moderate correlation with the global anchor question (polychoric correlation = 0.653), but the level of agreement (41.5%) was poor (Krippendorff's alfa coefficient = 0.609). For 197 re-test patients, the Wound-QoL-14 individual smallest detectable change was lower than the weighted minimal important difference (0.39 vs. 0.53 points, respectively). These findings support the interpretability of the Spanish version of the Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire for clinical and research use.</p>","PeriodicalId":14451,"journal":{"name":"International Wound Journal","volume":"23 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13635487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Wound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iwj.71065","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire has proven to be a valid instrument for assessing patients with chronic wounds. However, cutoff scores are not established, and the smallest detectable change and the minimal important difference have not been defined. We aimed to assess the interpretability, smallest detectable change and the minimal important difference of the Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire in a Spanish population with chronic wounds. At baseline, patients responded to a 5-Likert global anchor question about how much their wounds had been a problem, and bands of severity were calculated. At a re-test phase they responded to a 7-Likert anchor question about the severity of the change in wound status, and smallest detectable change and minimal important difference were calculated using a combination of anchor-based and distribution-based methods. At baseline, stratification of 323 patients according to simplified bands of severity (0–0.25/0.26–1.00/1.01–2.00/2.01–3.00/3.01–4) showed a moderate correlation with the global anchor question (polychoric correlation = 0.653), but the level of agreement (41.5%) was poor (Krippendorff's alfa coefficient = 0.609). For 197 re-test patients, the Wound-QoL-14 individual smallest detectable change was lower than the weighted minimal important difference (0.39 vs. 0.53 points, respectively). These findings support the interpretability of the Spanish version of the Wound-QoL-14 questionnaire for clinical and research use.

从数据到慢性伤口护理的临床决策:西班牙人群中伤口- qol -14的可解释性、最小重要差异和最小可检测变化的评估
Wound-QoL-14问卷已被证明是评估慢性伤口患者的有效工具。然而,截止分数尚未确定,最小可检测变化和最小重要差异尚未定义。我们的目的是评估西班牙慢性伤口人群中Wound-QoL-14问卷的可解释性、最小可检测变化和最小重要差异。在基线时,患者回答一个5-Likert全局锚问题,关于他们的伤口有多大问题,并计算严重程度。在重新测试阶段,他们回答了关于伤口状态变化严重程度的7-Likert锚点问题,并使用基于锚点和基于分布的方法组合计算最小可检测变化和最小重要差异。在基线时,323例患者根据简化的严重程度分级(0-0.25/0.26-1.00/1.01-2.00/2.01-3.00/3.01-4)分层,结果显示与全局锚点问题有中度相关性(多重相关性= 0.653),但一致性水平(41.5%)较差(Krippendorff's alfa系数= 0.609)。197例复测患者中,Wound-QoL-14个体最小可检测变化低于加权最小重要差异(分别为0.39和0.53)。这些发现支持西班牙语版Wound-QoL-14问卷在临床和研究中的可解释性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Wound Journal
International Wound Journal DERMATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.90%
发文量
266
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Editors welcome papers on all aspects of prevention and treatment of wounds and associated conditions in the fields of surgery, dermatology, oncology, nursing, radiotherapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy and podiatry. The Journal accepts papers in the following categories: - Research papers - Review articles - Clinical studies - Letters - News and Views: international perspectives, education initiatives, guidelines and different activities of groups and societies. Calendar of events The Editors are supported by a board of international experts and a panel of reviewers across a range of disciplines and specialties which ensures only the most current and relevant research is published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书