| Literature DB >> 22690246 |
Hua Zhang1, Hua Lv, Pin-Xian Huang, Yan Lin, Xin-Cai Hu, Ping Liu.
Abstract
Objective. To compare and analyze the relevance and applied value of chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ) and Traditional Chinese Medicine liver disease questionnaire (TCMLDQ) in patients with posthepatitic cirrhosis. Methods. The data of 146 patients' scales of CLDQ and TCMLDQ which based on the characteristics of chinese medical symptoms were collected. We made comparative analysis of the relationship between these two scales by the linear regression model and canonical correlation method and evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of two scales about its items setting and dimension definition. Result. There is a negative correlation in total scores between the two scales and the linear regression equation: CLDQ = 239.38 - 1.232TCMLDQ. The further canonical correlation analysis was used to analyze the two extracted canonical correlative variables with significances (P < 0.05), and the results showed that the overall negative correlation between the two scales mainly came from contributions of both the four dimensions of TCMLDQ (CS, GSYX, GYPX, and OS) and the five dimensions of CLDQ (AS, FA, SS, AC, and EF). Conclusion. These two scales have good consistency in the evaluation of severity and life quality of liver cirrhosis patients, so we suggested that TCMLDQ can be used to evaluate the severity and life quality of patients with posthepatitic cirrhosis.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22690246 PMCID: PMC3369239 DOI: 10.1155/2012/496575
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The questionnaire dimensionality consists of TCMLDQ and CLDQ.
| Dimensionality | Variable | Items | Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLDQ total score | CLDQ | 29 | AS + FA + SS + AC + EF + WO |
| Abdominal symptoms (ASs) |
| 3 | 1, 5, 17 |
| Fatigue (FA) |
| 5 | 2, 4, 8, 11, 13 |
| Systemic symptoms (SSs) |
| 5 | 3, 6, 21, 23, 27 |
| Activity (AC) |
| 3 | 7, 9, 14 |
| Emotional function (EF) |
| 8 | 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 26 |
| Worry (WO) |
| 3 | 18, 22, 25, 28, 29 |
|
| |||
| TCMLDQ total score | TCMLDQ | 38 | CS + GSYX + GYPX + PSYX + OS |
| CS |
| 18 | 1, 5, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
| GSYX |
| 5 | 2, 3, 11, 12, 15 |
| PSYX |
| 1 | 33 |
| GYPX |
| 6 | 4, 6, 7, 8, 19, 34 |
| OS |
| 8 | 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 32 |
The general information of patients with posthepatitic cirrhosis.
| Characteristic | Count | Proportion (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients source | Shuguang Hospital | 78 | 53.42 |
| Longhua Hospital | 56 | 38.36 | |
| Putuo District Center Hospital | 8 | 5.48 | |
| Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center | 4 | 2.74 | |
| Section | Outpatient/inpatient | 70/76 | 47.95/52.05 |
| Sex | Male | 105 | 71.9 |
| Female | 41 | 28.1 | |
| Age (years) | <40 | 14 | 9.58 |
| 40–60 | 105 | 71.92 | |
| ≥60 | 27 | 18.49 | |
| Virus infection | Hepatitis B virus | 143 | 97.95 |
| Hepatitis C virus | 3 | 2.05 | |
| Splenectomy | Yes | 16 | 10.95 |
Linear regression equation of total scores of TCMLDQ and CLDQ.
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
|
| 95% confidence interval for | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std. error | Beta | Lower bound | Upper bound | |||
| Constant | 239.38 | 6.750 | 35.462 | 0.000 | 226.039 | 252.724 | |
| TCMLDQ | −1.232 | 0.094 | −0.737 | −13.069 | 0.000 | −1.418 | −1.046 |
Note: dependent variable: CLDQ total score; TCMLDQ: TCMLDQ total score.
Figure 1Linear regression plot of total scores of TCMLDQ and CLDQ.
Figure 2CLDQ total score, predicted values and individual 95% confidence intervals, and TCMLDQ total score line graph. Note: TCMLDQ: TCMLDQ actual measured total score; CLDQ: CLDQ actual measured total score; PRE: CLDQ scores predicted by TCMLDQ score; UICI: upper bounds of predicted CLDQ individual 95% confidence intervals; LICI: lower bounds of predicted CLDQ individual 95% confidence intervals.
Correlation coefficients between various dimensions of TCMLDQ and CLDQ.
| Dimensions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.5426** | −0.5711** | −0.5904** | −0.5118** | −0.5578** | −0.3695** |
|
| −0.2283** | −0.4891** | −0.3352** | −0.2653** | −0.2798** | −0.2001* |
|
| −0.2171** | −0.0839 | −0.2145** | −0.1552 | −0.0502 | −0.1244 |
|
| −0.6688** | −0.5714** | −0.4349** | −0.6409** | −0.4110** | −0.3430** |
|
| −0.2416** | −0.3234** | −0.3532** | −0.2115* | −0.3203** | −0.1936* |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
Canonical correlation coefficients of variables of TCMLDQ and CLDQ.
| Canonical variable | Coefficient | Wilk's | Chi-square | df |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ( | 0.812 | 0.212 | 215.318 | 30 | 0.000 |
| 2 ( | 0.532 | 0.624 | 65.619 | 20 | 0.000 |
| 3 ( | 0.324 | 0.870 | 19.418 | 12 | 0.079 |
| 4 ( | 0.166 | 0.972 | 3.988 | 6 | 0.678 |
| 5 ( | 0.027 | 0.999 | 0.103 | 2 | 0.950 |
Note: U (U1 to U5) stands for extracted canonical correlation variables from a group of X variables (TCMLDQ); V (V1 to V5) stands for extracted canonical correlation variables from Y (CLDQ).
Standardized U and V of canonical correlation variables coefficient table.
| Variable 1 | Standardized correlation coefficients ( | Variable 2 | Standardized correlation coefficients ( | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.497 | 0.749 | 0.718 | 0.213 | 0.814 |
| 0.487 | −0.674 | 0.190 | 0.111 | −0.975 |
|
| 0.038 | 0.474 | 0.972 | 0.522 | 0.211 |
| 0.222 | 0.563 | −1.233 | −0.119 | −0.333 |
|
| 0.054 | 0.122 | 0.453 | 0.932 | 0.030 |
| 0.094 | 0.712 | 0.653 | −0.708 | 0.126 |
|
| 0.639 | 1.056 | 0.423 | 0.158 | 0.341 |
| 0.296 | −0.792 | 0.115 | 0.073 | 1.055 |
|
| 0.135 | 0.324 | 0.282 | 0.314 | 1.157 |
| 0.244 | 0.438 | 0.321 | 1.115 | −0.054 |
|
| −0.076 | 0.030 | 0.122 | −0.588 | 0.372 | ||||||
(1) U1 = 0.497X1 + 0.038X2 + 0.054X3 + 0.639X4 + 0.135X5,
V1 = 0.487Y1 + 0.222Y2 + 0.094Y3 + 0.296Y4 + 0.244Y5 − 0.076Y6.
(2) U2 = 0.749X1 + 0.474X2 + 0.122X3 + 1.056X4 + 0.324X5,
V2 = −0.674Y1 + 0.563Y2 + 0.712Y3 − 0.792Y4 + 0.438Y5 + 0.030Y6.