B Lo1, M V Prosberg1, L L Gluud1, W Chan2,3, R W Leong3, E van der List3, M van der Have4, H Sarter5, C Gower-Rousseau5, L Peyrin-Biroulet6, I Vind1, J Burisch1. 1. Gastrounit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 3. Gastroenterology and Liver Services, Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Public Health Unit, Epimad Registry, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. 6. Inserm U954 and Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Nancy and Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disability Index (IBD-DI) has recently been developed for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To assess the severity of disability and associated factors using the IBD-DI, and review the validity of the IBD-DI as a tool. METHOD: Systematic review of cross-sectional studies. Patients included had UC or CD and were classified as active, in remission, or needing surgery, biological and/or steroid treatment. We included studies assessing disability using the IBD-DI and that were captured by electronic and manual searches (January 2017). The possibility of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine studies were included with 3167 patients. Comparatively, patients with active disease had higher disability rates than those in remission (SMD [CI95] = 1.49[1.11, 1.88], I2 = 94%, P<.01), while patients on biological treatment had lower disability rates than those receiving corticosteroid treatment (SMD [CI95] = -0.22[-0.36, -0.08], I2 = 0%, P<.01). Disease activity and unemployment were found to be associated factors. The IBD-DI scored "good" for internal consistency, "fair" to "excellent" for intra-rater reliability and "excellent" for inter-rater reliability. Construct validity was "moderately strong" to "very strong" and structural validity was found to be mainly unidimensional. The IBD-DI had excellent responsiveness, while its interpretability was only useful on a group level. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found a significant association between disease activity, treatment received and disability; although significant heterogeneity was found. The IBD-DI is reliable and valid, but further studies are needed to measure its interpretability.
BACKGROUND: The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disability Index (IBD-DI) has recently been developed for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To assess the severity of disability and associated factors using the IBD-DI, and review the validity of the IBD-DI as a tool. METHOD: Systematic review of cross-sectional studies. Patients included had UC or CD and were classified as active, in remission, or needing surgery, biological and/or steroid treatment. We included studies assessing disability using the IBD-DI and that were captured by electronic and manual searches (January 2017). The possibility of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine studies were included with 3167 patients. Comparatively, patients with active disease had higher disability rates than those in remission (SMD [CI95] = 1.49[1.11, 1.88], I2 = 94%, P<.01), while patients on biological treatment had lower disability rates than those receiving corticosteroid treatment (SMD [CI95] = -0.22[-0.36, -0.08], I2 = 0%, P<.01). Disease activity and unemployment were found to be associated factors. The IBD-DI scored "good" for internal consistency, "fair" to "excellent" for intra-rater reliability and "excellent" for inter-rater reliability. Construct validity was "moderately strong" to "very strong" and structural validity was found to be mainly unidimensional. The IBD-DI had excellent responsiveness, while its interpretability was only useful on a group level. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found a significant association between disease activity, treatment received and disability; although significant heterogeneity was found. The IBD-DI is reliable and valid, but further studies are needed to measure its interpretability.
Authors: Lea K Christiansen; Bobby Lo; Flemming Bendtsen; Ida Vind; Marianne K Vester-Andersen; Johan Burisch Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Manish Dhyani; Nitin Joshi; Willem A Bemelman; Michael S Gee; Vijay Yajnik; André D'Hoore; Giovanni Traverso; Mark Donowitz; Gustavo Mostoslavsky; Timothy K Lu; Neil Lineberry; Heiko G Niessen; Dan Peer; Jonathan Braun; Conor P Delaney; Marla C Dubinsky; Ashley N Guillory; Maria Pereira; Nataly Shtraizent; Gerard Honig; David Brent Polk; Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo; Jeffrey M Karp; Fabrizio Michelassi Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Rafael López-Cortés; Raquel Herrero-Hahn; Rosanna De la Rosa-Eduardo; Rafael Montoya-Juárez; María Paz García-Caro; Blanca Marín-Fernández; César Hueso-Montoro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Thomas M Goodsall; Richard Noy; Tran M Nguyen; Samuel P Costello; Vipul Jairath; Robert V Bryant Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2020-01-24