P Wiriyakijja1,2, S Fedele1,3, S Porter1, V Mercadante1, R Ni Riordain1. 1. UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK. 2. Department of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the range of existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in studies of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and to evaluate their quality properties via the assessment of psychometric properties and interpretability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant publications related to PROMs used in RAS. Publications were selected based on predefined criteria. All identified PROMs were then classified by measuring concepts and assessed for instrument characteristics and evidence for quality properties for RAS patients. RESULTS: Twenty-eight PROMs were used in studies of RAS patients. Instruments focused upon oral symptoms (n = 4), psychosocial status (n = 15) and quality of life (n = 9). Five PROMs (Oral Health-related Quality of Life-UK, Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile-14, Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 and Mumcu's composite index) were found to have some evidence of psychometric performance. No PROMs showed evidence for interpretability of their scores in RAS patients. CONCLUSION: There was a wide range of PROMs used in clinical studies of RAS. The majority of these PROMs lack evidence of measurement properties and interpretability for RAS patients. Further studies are required to confirm whether these instruments are suitable and useful for this patient group.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the range of existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in studies of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and to evaluate their quality properties via the assessment of psychometric properties and interpretability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant publications related to PROMs used in RAS. Publications were selected based on predefined criteria. All identified PROMs were then classified by measuring concepts and assessed for instrument characteristics and evidence for quality properties for RAS patients. RESULTS: Twenty-eight PROMs were used in studies of RAS patients. Instruments focused upon oral symptoms (n = 4), psychosocial status (n = 15) and quality of life (n = 9). Five PROMs (Oral Health-related Quality of Life-UK, Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile-14, Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 and Mumcu's composite index) were found to have some evidence of psychometric performance. No PROMs showed evidence for interpretability of their scores in RAS patients. CONCLUSION: There was a wide range of PROMs used in clinical studies of RAS. The majority of these PROMs lack evidence of measurement properties and interpretability for RAS patients. Further studies are required to confirm whether these instruments are suitable and useful for this patient group.