Meryl Brod1, Steven I Blum2, Donald M Bushnell3, Abhilasha Ramasamy4. 1. The Brod Group, 219 Julia Avenue, Mill Valley, CA, 94941, USA. mbrod@thebrodgroup.net. 2. GlaxoSmithKline, 2301 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, PA, 19406, USA. 3. Health Research Associates, Inc., 6505 216th Street SW, Suite 105, Mountlake Terrace, WA, 98043, USA. 4. Actavis, Inc., Harborside Financial Center, Plaza V, Jersey City, NJ, 07311, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) occurs in 26-47 % of diabetes patients and may have negative impacts on physical functioning, sleep, well-being, and quality of life. The Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Impact measure (DPNPI) was developed to measure disease impacts and treatment effects. Presented are the DPNPI conceptual development and validation findings. METHODS: The DPNPI was developed following the FDA Guidance for Industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Concept elicitation (CE) included literature review, clinical expert interviews, and patient interviews/focus groups. Qualitative data were analyzed following grounded theory principles, and draft items were cognitively debriefed. The measure underwent psychometric validation, and an a priori statistical analysis plan assessed the measurement model, reliability, and validity. Simultaneous analyses of item functioning were conducted using Rasch measurement theory (RMT). All tests were performed for the total score and each domain. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients and three clinical experts participated in CE which resulted in a 27-item validation ready measure. In the validation study (N = 124), nine draft items were dropped due to high missing data and/or high correlations between items. Factor analysis revealed three domains: physical functioning/mobility, sleep, and daily activities. RMT confirmed adequate item fit and placement within domains. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 and test-retest from 0.84 to 0.91. All prespecified hypotheses for convergent and discriminant validity were met. CONCLUSIONS: CE and psychometric results provide evidence that the final, 18-item DPNPI is a reliable and valid PRO measure of disease impacts and treatment for DPNP. Further validation work should include responsiveness assessment.
PURPOSE:Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) occurs in 26-47 % of diabetespatients and may have negative impacts on physical functioning, sleep, well-being, and quality of life. The Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Impact measure (DPNPI) was developed to measure disease impacts and treatment effects. Presented are the DPNPI conceptual development and validation findings. METHODS: The DPNPI was developed following the FDA Guidance for Industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Concept elicitation (CE) included literature review, clinical expert interviews, and patient interviews/focus groups. Qualitative data were analyzed following grounded theory principles, and draft items were cognitively debriefed. The measure underwent psychometric validation, and an a priori statistical analysis plan assessed the measurement model, reliability, and validity. Simultaneous analyses of item functioning were conducted using Rasch measurement theory (RMT). All tests were performed for the total score and each domain. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients and three clinical experts participated in CE which resulted in a 27-item validation ready measure. In the validation study (N = 124), nine draft items were dropped due to high missing data and/or high correlations between items. Factor analysis revealed three domains: physical functioning/mobility, sleep, and daily activities. RMT confirmed adequate item fit and placement within domains. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 and test-retest from 0.84 to 0.91. All prespecified hypotheses for convergent and discriminant validity were met. CONCLUSIONS: CE and psychometric results provide evidence that the final, 18-item DPNPI is a reliable and valid PRO measure of disease impacts and treatment for DPNP. Further validation work should include responsiveness assessment.
Authors: J Todd Coffey; Michael Brandle; Honghong Zhou; Deanna Marriott; Ray Burke; Bahman P Tabaei; Michael M Engelgau; Robert M Kaplan; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: K Van Acker; D Bouhassira; D De Bacquer; S Weiss; K Matthys; H Raemen; C Mathieu; I M Colin Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Jaime López-Sánchez; Carmen Esteban; Manuel J Iglesias; Luis M González; José E Quiñones; Juan I González-Muñoz; Guadalupe Tabernero; Rosa A Iglesias; Pilar Fraile; Javier I Muñoz-González; Luis Muñoz-Bellvís Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: J Dietzel; S Hörder; I V Habermann; G Meyer-Hamme; K Hahn; M Ortiz; S Roll; K Linde; D Irnich; M Hammes; R Nögel; M Wullinger; V Wortman; J Hummelsberger; S N Willich; S Schröder; B Brinkhaus Journal: Trials Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Gisele Zapata-Sudo; Isabelle Karine da Costa Nunes; Josenildo Segundo Chaves Araujo; Jaqueline Soares da Silva; Margarete Manhães Trachez; Tiago Fernandes da Silva; Filipe P da Costa; Roberto Takashi Sudo; Eliezer J Barreiro; Lídia Moreira Lima Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 4.162
Authors: Georgios Ponirakis; Tarik Elhadd; Subitha Chinnaiyan; Abdul H Hamza; Sanaulla Sheik; Mohamed A Kalathingal; Mohamed S Anodiyil; Zeinab Dabbous; Mashhood A Siddique; Hamad Almuhannadi; Ioannis N Petropoulos; Adnan Khan; Khaled Ae Ashawesh; Khaled M Dukhan; Ziyad R Mahfoud; Mahmoud A Zirie; Amin Jayyousi; Christopher Murgatroyd; Mark Slevin; Rayaz A Malik Journal: J Diabetes Investig Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 4.232