BACKGROUND: No validated assessment of allergic rhinitis (AR) is presently available that can be used in population studies in the absence of medical diagnosis and of objective measurements of allergy. To compensate for this lack, a quantitative Score For Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR) ranging between 0 and 16 has been developed by experts. METHODS: The SFAR, encompassing eight features of AR, was validated in three different ways: 1) among 269 outpatients taking the specialist's diagnosis of AR and skin prick tests (SPT) positivity as a gold standard (diagnosis validation); 2) using psychometric methods (internal validation); and 3) in a random population-based sample of 3001 individuals by telephone interview (population acceptability). RESULTS: A SFAR value > or = 7 allowed satisfactory discrimination between the outpatients with AR from those without (sensitivity = 74% [95% confidence interval CI: 0.69,0.79], specificity = 83% [0.79, 0.87], positive predictive value = 84% [0.80, 0.88], negative predictive value = 74% [0.69, 0.79] and Youden's index = 0.57, respectively). Internal consistency of the score was also high (among others, Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.79). On average, it took only 3 min for the individuals interviewed on the phone to complete the questionnaire, the questions of which were well understood. Among these subjects, the prevalence of AR was 21% [95% CI: 19.5%, 22.5%], which is comparable to other determinations in France. CONCLUSIONS: The newly a priori proposed Score For Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR) is easy to use and can be useful to estimate prevalence and to study causation of AR in population settings.
BACKGROUND: No validated assessment of allergic rhinitis (AR) is presently available that can be used in population studies in the absence of medical diagnosis and of objective measurements of allergy. To compensate for this lack, a quantitative Score For Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR) ranging between 0 and 16 has been developed by experts. METHODS: The SFAR, encompassing eight features of AR, was validated in three different ways: 1) among 269 outpatients taking the specialist's diagnosis of AR and skin prick tests (SPT) positivity as a gold standard (diagnosis validation); 2) using psychometric methods (internal validation); and 3) in a random population-based sample of 3001 individuals by telephone interview (population acceptability). RESULTS: A SFAR value > or = 7 allowed satisfactory discrimination between the outpatients with AR from those without (sensitivity = 74% [95% confidence interval CI: 0.69,0.79], specificity = 83% [0.79, 0.87], positive predictive value = 84% [0.80, 0.88], negative predictive value = 74% [0.69, 0.79] and Youden's index = 0.57, respectively). Internal consistency of the score was also high (among others, Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.79). On average, it took only 3 min for the individuals interviewed on the phone to complete the questionnaire, the questions of which were well understood. Among these subjects, the prevalence of AR was 21% [95% CI: 19.5%, 22.5%], which is comparable to other determinations in France. CONCLUSIONS: The newly a priori proposed Score For Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR) is easy to use and can be useful to estimate prevalence and to study causation of AR in population settings.
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Haejin Kim; Linda Levin; Grace K LeMasters; Manuel Villareal; Sherry Evans; James E Lockey; Gurjit K Khurana Hershey; David I Bernstein Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Judith Schwartzbaum; Anders Ahlbom; Beatrice Malmer; Stefan Lönn; Anthony J Brookes; Hani Doss; Waldemar Debinski; Roger Henriksson; Maria Feychting Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Yang-Sun Cho; Seung-Ho Choi; Kyoung Ho Park; Hong Ju Park; Jeong-Whun Kim; Il Joon Moon; Chae-Seo Rhee; Kyung Soo Kim; Dong-Il Sun; Seung Hwan Lee; Ja-Won Koo; Yoon Woo Koh; Kun Hee Lee; Seung Won Lee; Kyung Won Oh; Eun Young Pyo; Ari Lee; Young Taek Kim; Chul Hee Lee Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.372