1. Introduction
Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare multisystem connective tissue disorder of unknown etiology, characterized by excessive collagen deposition in the skin and other organs. It affects predominantly women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3–8:1, and a frequency peak between 45 and 64 years old [1,2]. The annual incidence in Europe is about 19–43/million/year and prevalence is close to 300/million patients, with Norway, France, Croatia, and Greece reporting lower values [3].
Gastrointestinal (GI) tract involvement in SSc has been estimated to be approximately 70–90%. [4,5] However, only 8% of patients appear with severe involvement leading to increased morbimortality [6]. Any region of the GI tract may be involved, with a substantial variability in extension, severity, and disease course. In nearly 10% of cases, GI symptoms could be the first manifestation of SSc [7,8]. Medications, GI microbiota, diet, and other comorbidities are also additional factors that may predispose or worsen GI symptoms [7]. Despite numerous studies having demonstrated that SSc-GI involvement has a significative negative impact on quality of life [7,9], in clinical practice, assessment of skin, and cardiorespiratory and renal involvement, remain the focus of clinical evaluation.
The original UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire was developed in 2009, and since then it has been recognized as a feasible and reliable instrument to evaluate GI symptoms, and to assess its impact on HRQoL in SSc patients [10]. This questionnaire had been translated into and validated in several languages [11,12,13,14,15,16], but not yet into European Portuguese.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to create and validate the UCLA GIT 2.0 (University of California, Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract) for Portuguese patients with SSc-GI involvement.
2. Materials and Methods
We followed good practice principles to translate and culturally adapt health outcomes instruments [17] and the Cosmin taxonomy to validate the obtained Portuguese version [18].
2.1. Cultural Adaptation
Before initiating this study, we contacted Dr Dinesh Khanna, the main author of the UCLA GIT 2.0, in order to obtain his permission to validate a Portuguese version of this instrument. We received the information that a Portuguese non-validated version already existed, following the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on translation [19], and that we should use the version on the University of Michigan’s website.
However, to content validate this Portuguese version, we still felt the necessity to perform a clinical review with two rheumatologists and a cognitive debriefing with patients.
2.2. Participants
To validate the UCLA GIT 2.0, we created a questionnaire and invited consecutive patients from five Portuguese hospital centers to participate in the present study between January and April 2022. Inclusion criteria were any one of the following: (1) fulfilment of the 2013 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria for the classification of diffuse SSc (dSSc) or limited SSc (lSSc) [20]; (2) the combined EUSTAR (European Scleroderma Trial and Research Group) criteria for very early diagnosis of SSc (VEDOSS) [21]; or (3) presentation of SSc sine scleroderma. These patients were supposed to be autonomous, aged between 18 and 80 years, and with the ability to understand Portuguese and to grant informed consent. Pregnant women were excluded.
A smaller group of patients was randomly selected to complete, a second time, the UCLA GIT 2.0, one month after the previous consultation.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Regional Health Authority of the Center (ARSC 14/2020) and by the Ethics Committee from one of the hospital centers (CHTV 05/16/09/2021). We also obtained authorization from all the heads of the five rheumatology departments involved. Each participant signed a written consent form before filling in the questionnaire.
2.3. Measurement Instruments
Participants in this study were asked to complete sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical information, as well as the Portuguese versions of the health status (SF-36v2) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires.
Regarding the sociodemographic variables, we collected data on sex, age, marital and employment status, and years of education. Smoking and alcohol use were used as proxies for lifestyle variables. Lastly, the clinical variables measured were the SSc subset classification, disease duration since diagnosis, 2013 ACR/EULAR classification criteria, organ involvement, use of pharmacotherapy for the GI system, and complementary diagnostic tests.
The 34-item UCLA GIT 2.0, originally developed in English by Khanna et al., represents one of the few valid and reliable patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for GI assessment in SSc [10]. It is an improved and shorter version of the 52-item SSC-GIT 1.0 (Scleroderma Gastrointestinal Tract Involvement 1.0) from the same author. It measures eight health-related quality of life (HRQoL) dimensions (reflux, distention/bloating, fecal soilage, diarrhea, social functioning, emotional wellbeing, and constipation) and has been used in several clinical trials of GI treatments in patients with SSc as an outcome measure [22,23]. The total UCLA GIT score is calculated by averaging all the subscales, except the one for constipation, and ranges from 0 (best HRQoL) to 2.83 (worst HRQoL). Its clinically important difference has previously been determined [24] and it has been culturally translated and validated in different languages [11,12,13,14,15,16,25]. The levels of GI severity symptoms used in this paper were described by the author in [26].
GI involvement was also assessed by the proposed inclusion criteria by Khanna et al. [26] that included the presence of at least one of the following: (1) GI symptoms for at least three of the past seven days—evaluated by UCLA GIT 2.0; (2) abnormal results in GI complementary diagnostic tests; and/or (3) use of pharmacotherapy for the GI system.
The short-form version of the SF-36 health survey (SF-36v2) is a generic instrument designed to measure the self-perception of individuals regarding their health status on a scale from 0 (death) to 100 (perfect health status). [27] It assesses eight dimensions (physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), role limitations due to physical health (RE), general health perception (GH), mental health (MH), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), vitality (VT), and social functioning (SF)) and provides two component summary measures, one physical (PCS) and the other mental (MCS). In the case of the Portuguese version, [28] these summary measures are normalized to the Portuguese general population.
EQ-5D-5L is a generic preference-based quality of life questionnaire that measures five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). Each dimension has five levels of impairment, allowing us to describe a total of 3125 different health states [29]. A visual analogue scale also asks for self-perception of general health status. Portuguese utilities can be computed by an algorithm based on general public preferences [30] and Portuguese norms are also available [31].
2.4. Reliability
We tested the reliability of the Portuguese UCLA GIT 2.0 version through internal consistency, item–total correlation, and intertemporal stability.
Internal consistency was tested by means of the score of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, where accepted values should be between 0.70 and 0.90 [18]. Intertemporal stability was tested by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with two consecutive moments one month apart. We followed the criteria that stipulate that an ICC lower than 0.50 corresponds to a weak correlation; a score between 0.50 and 0.75 and between 0.75 to 0.90, respectively, correspond to a moderate and good correlation; and a score higher than 0.90 corresponds to an excellent correlation [32].
2.5. Validity
Content validity was tested during the cultural adaptation we performed on the Portuguese UCLA GIT 2.0 version provided by the author. In addition to this, construct validity tests included both structural validity and hypothesis testing with samples of sociodemographic and clinical variables. Finally, criterion validity was tested by comparing the total GIT score with the scores obtained by the SF-36v2 and EQ-5D-5L [18].
To test structural validity, we performed exploratory factor analysis based on principal components estimates with a previous assessment of the sampling adequacy via the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) indicator and by using Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A KMO smaller than 0.50 or between 0.50 and 0.60 is considered unacceptable or poor, and if between 0.60 and 0.70, between 0.70 and 0.80, between 0.80 and 0.90, or higher than 0.90, is seen, respectively, as fair, average, good, or very good. The significance of the Bartlett sphericity test should be smaller than 0.001 [33].
For the total UCLA GIT score, the hypothesis testing was performed with known sociodemographic (sex, age group) and clinical variables groups, based on the distribution of each variable. Student’s t-test was used for two independent variables and ANOVA for more than two independent variables.
To test the criterion validity, we computed Pearson’s correlations and followed Cohen’s (1988) [34] rule, according to which correlations smaller than 0.30 are considered weak, those between 0.30 and 0.50 are considered moderate, and those higher than 0.50 are considered strong.
The statistical software used was SPSS v28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Sample
Our sample was composed of 102 SSc patients. The sociodemographic and lifestyle variables are presented in Table 1.
All patients approached by the researchers agreed to participate in the study. In general, our sample was composed of females (82.4%) and patients older than 50 years (70.6%), who were married (69.6%), and had at least seven years of education (58.9%). A smaller percentage of them were smokers (5.9%) and/or alcohol drinkers (15.7%).
Table 2 presents the main clinical characteristics measured in this study.
Of the sample, 62% presented with the lSSc form (vs. diffuse subset in 29.4%) and the majority had fewer than five years of disease duration (56.9%). According to the GI criteria, 59.8% of patients presented with GI involvement associated with the SSc, 82.0% of them showed clinical symptoms, 50.8% were under GI pharmacotherapy, and 55.7% had abnormalities in GI exams. The majority of patients experienced Raynaud’s phenomenon (94.1%) and presented abnormal nailfold capillaries (79.4%). Concerning skin manifestations, sclerodactyly and telangiectasias abnormal nailfold capillaries were the most prevalent (in 63.7% and 62.7% of the patients, respectively), digital tip ulcers were present in 30.4%, and 27.5% presented with puffy fingers and fingertip pitting scars. Lung involvement as interstitial disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension was seen in 21.6% and 8.8% of the patients, respectively.
In addition, 89% of patients had positivity for Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA). Regarding SSc-related autoantibodies, the most common was anticentromere (59%), followed by anti-topoisomerase I (19.6%) and anti-RNA polymerase III (1%).
The health status and quality of life scores of the sample are presented in Table 3. The UCLA GIT 2.0 scores for the sample are shown in Table 4.
High burdens caused by this disease, mainly in the physical health status dimensions, were found.
Table 4 also shows the discrimination power of UCLA GIT 2.0 among the severity levels of patients’ disease.
The means for all the UCLA GIT scores were very low, meaning that the majority of patients had never experienced such GI symptoms. In fact, the observed answers in the various dimensions varied from 34.3% (distension/bloating) to 89.1% (fecal soilage). Contrary to patients without GI symptoms were the domains of reflux and distension/bloating, classified as severe in 15.7%, followed by constipation in 14.7%. The total GIT score was reported as mild in 57.8%, moderate in 16.7%, and severe in only 10.8% of the patients.
Analyzing Table 4, the means for all UCLA GIT dimensions are smaller in asymptomatic patients and increase with the severity of symptoms. In fact, all the UCLA dimensions scores (except fecal soilage) were statistically different between patients with no, mild, moderate, or severe symptoms.
Low UCLA GIT scores were seen in the domains of social functioning and emotional wellbeing, which were not affected in 60.8% and 53.9% of the patients, respectively. Only 13.7% reported severe symptoms relating to emotional wellbeing, compared to 5.9% for social functioning.
3.2. Reliability
Table 5 presents the ICC scores from the one-month test–retest on 31 SSc patients. The total GIT score index was highly reliable (ICC = 0.912), with partial scores ranging between good (0.784) and excellent (0.927).
In addition, the item–total correlations for all UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions ranged from 0.655 to 0.898, very acceptable. The internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha for the total GIT score was 0.954, ranging from 0.672 (diarrhea) to 0.939 (emotional wellbeing).
3.3. Validity
Because the Portuguese version of UCLA GIT 2.0 had already been provided by its author, the content validity test was limited to a clinical review with two rheumatologists and a cognitive debriefing with eight patients. Very minor changes were proposed by the experts, and patients did not show any difficulties in understanding the Portuguese version of this measurement instrument. In addition, they did not find any redundancies or ambiguities.
To test structural validity, we used principal component factor analysis, and we were able to find the main dimensions defined by the authors of the original version with 76.3% of the variance explained. The dimensions ‘diarrhea’, ‘emotional wellbeing’, and ‘constipation’ appeared immediately after factor analysis. However, ‘social functioning’, representing the interference of disease with social activities, was divided into two factors, the first one including the dimension ‘soilage’. In addition, the dimensions ‘reflux’ and ‘distension/bloating’ produced two other dimensions, one of them concerning only regurgitating, feeling like vomiting, or vomiting; the other dimension encompassed all the distension items plus heartburn, acid reflux, and sleeping in a raised or seated position. Having difficulty swallowing solid food appeared independently from the other dimensions. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.855 (good) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was associated with a significance smaller than 0.001.
Construct validity also included how the total GIT score and the UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions behaved when the sample was split on the basis of certain sociodemographic and clinical variables. Table 6 presents the results of the t-Student and ANOVA tests considering the total GIT score and the dimensions that were revealed to be significant.
As we can observe from this table, the total UCLA GIT score is not statistically different when distinct subsamples are considered. However, when the dimension ‘diarrhea’ is analyzed, women showed fewer symptoms than men. Moreover, whenever GI involvement exists, we evidenced significantly higher total UCLA GIT scores as well as in partial domains regarding ‘reflux’, ‘distension/bloating’, and ‘constipation’. Similar conclusions were found when cases of total UCLA GIT equal to zero were excluded.
Lastly, to test the criterion validity of the Portuguese version of UCLA GIT 2.0, we correlated the total GIT scores with the scores from EQ-5D-5L and SF-36v2. The results of these correlation analyses are presented in Table 7.
From this table, we notice a high correlation between any UCLA GIT 2.0 dimension and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Regarding self-perception of health status (SF-36v2), both summary scores show, in general, highly significant correlations with the UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions. There is a natural exception for ‘constipation’, which seems not to be correlated with physical dimensions, namely RP, BP, and GH. We found significant moderate correlations between UCLA GIT ‘emotional wellbeing’ and the SF-36v2 dimensions SF, RE, and MH. Patients with GI involvement presented, although highly significant, weak correlations with EQ-5D-5L and some domains of SF-36v2, namely RP, BP, and MH.
4. Discussion
Involvement of the GI tract may be present in 90% of all patients with SSc and it is associated with a decline in HRQoL. Regardless of its high prevalence, GI tract involvement remains poorly investigated in clinical practice, and treatment options are based on symptoms control. With this as a background, the UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire enables GI symptom evaluation as a feasible and reliable instrument, and assesses its impact on the HRQoL of SSc patients [4,5,10].
The present study supports prior findings that the Portuguese version of the UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire showed very good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.954). The reproducibility measured by the test–retest presented a highly reliable ICC equal to 0.912, and the item–total correlations of the different dimensions were acceptable, ranging from 0.655 to 0.898. These results were similar to those obtained by the author of the original version, as well as by the other language validations [9,11,12,13,14,15,16,25].
The Portuguese version was very well accepted by patients in a cognitive debriefing and approved by the two rheumatologists in content validity.
To test construct validity, we analyzed sociodemographic and clinical criteria, and the total UCLA GIT score was not statistically different in the considered subsamples, except in the diarrhea dimension, where women showed fewer symptoms than men. There is some inconsistency in the literature regarding the influence of sex in GI involvement and severity in SSc patients. McMahan et al. found the male sex strongly associated with severe GI dysmotility [35].
Similarly to other studies, we did not find any difference between disease subset classification, duration, or disease specific autoantibodies and GI involvement [9]. In the French study, patients with lSSc had significantly higher mean scores in the ‘distention/bloating’ (1.16 vs. 0.72), ‘constipation’ (0.48 vs. 0.27), and total GIT (0.65 vs. 0.38) domains [11]. The Serbian study was the only one reporting a higher mean distension scale score in anti-centromere patients compared with anti-topoisomerase I positive patients (1.0 vs. 0.56, p = 0.05) and, excluding the ‘diarrhea’ domain, all others mean scores were also higher in anti-centromere positive patients, although not reaching statistical significance [16].
Concerning GI involvement, patients with symptoms, under GI therapy, or showing alterations in GI complementary testing presented significantly higher total UCLA GIT scores and in partial domain scores regarding ‘reflux’, ‘distension/bloating’, and ‘constipation’. In the Dutch study, there was a significant difference of all subscales of the UCLA GIT, except for ‘constipation’, between patients with and without GI diagnoses [12].
Concerning criterion validity, we found a high negative correlation between any UCLA GIT 2.0 dimension and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), the strongest correlation being between emotional wellbeing (r2 = −0.532 for index and −0.439 for VAS) and total UCLA GIT score (r2 = −0.475 for index and −0.463 for VAS). Patients with GI involvement also showed a significant correlation with EQ-5D-5L, although weaker (r2 = −0.198 for index and −0.224 for VAS).
In previous validations, only the Italian one included the EQ-5D questionnaire, and the results were in line with our study, reporting that UCLA GI 2.0 emotional wellbeing significantly correlated more with the impact on usual activities and to a lesser extent with the limitation of physical problems [14].
In the SF-36v2 questionnaire, both summary scores showed, in general, highly significant correlations with UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions, exception for ‘constipation’, which seems not to be correlated with physical dimensions, namely RP, BP, and GH.
The strongest correlations between UCLA GIT 2.0 ‘emotional wellbeing’ and the SF-36v2 were in the GH, SF, RE, and MH domains (r2 between −0.406 and −0.472). The French, Dutch, Italian, Romanian, Chinese, and Turkish validations also reported weak to moderate correlation between UCLA GIT 2.0 ‘emotional wellbeing’ and some domains of SF-36v2, namely RE and MH, but not with GH or SF [11,12,13,14,15,25].
The social functioning domains of UCLA GIT 2.0 and SF-36v2 presented a negatively moderate correlation of −0.368, in line with the Italian, Singapore and Romanian validations. [13,14,15] On the other hand, in the French and Turkish validations, although the social functioning scales between the two instruments had a statistical association, the correlation was weak (r2 = −0.27, p < 0.05) [11,25].
Contrary to MCS, which showed highly significant correlations with all UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions, PCS was not correlated with either the ‘fecal soilage’ or ‘social function’ UCLA GIT 2.0 dimensions. Moderate correlations were seen between PCS and ‘reflux’ and total GIT score, whereas weak correlations were found between PCS and ‘constipation’, ‘distension/bloating’, ‘diarrhea’, and ‘emotional wellbeing’, regarding the UCLA GIT 2.0 instrument. In the Turkish validation, a moderate negative correlation was found between the SF-36 PCS and the ‘reflux’, ‘distension’, ‘diarrhea’, ‘social functioning’, ‘emotional wellbeing’, and total UCLA scores [25]. In the French study, a moderate correlation was also found between the SF-36 PCS and the ‘reflux’, ‘distension’, ‘social functioning’, and total UCLA scores [11]. Similarly, a moderate negative correlation was found between the SF-36v2 PCS and the ‘distension’ and total UCLA scores in the Dutch study only [12].
We found a significant moderate correlation between the physical function of SF-36v2 and all symptom domains of the UCLA GIT 2.0, including the total UCLA GIT score, similarly to the Turkish validation [25]. No correlation was found between the UCLA GIT 2.0 domains and the physical functioning subscales in the French, Dutch, and Romanian studies, or in the Italian validation, where there was no significant correlation between these subscales, except for ‘constipation’ and RP of SF-36v2 [11,12,13,14].
Total GIT score was the domain where correlations were stronger and significantly higher for the mental health scales than for the PCS score of the SF-36. These results are similar to other validations [9,11,11,12,13,15,16,25].
Patients with GI involvement presented, although highly significant, weak correlations with some domains of SF-36v2, namely RP, BP, and MH.
Different results from other validation papers may be explained by the diversity of SSc patients (sample sizes and clinical characteristics) and cultural differences of our sample when compared with their studies.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although we have complied with the minimum same size to validate a measurement instrument, we consider that it would be advantageous to replicate the study with a larger sample. This would probably provide us with better variability of the analyzed variables.
5. Conclusions
Strictly following methodological criteria, we have created and validated a Portuguese version of UCLA GIT 2.0. This version of UCLA GIT 2.0 showed good psychometric properties and can be used in research and clinical practice for the assessment of GI involvement in SSc patients.
P.L.F. and I.G. equally contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis and drafting of the manuscript. I.G. supervised the contacts among all study settings. All the other authors supervised the data collection. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was initially approved by the Ethics Committee of Center Regional Health Authority (Ref. 14/2020) and by the Ethics Committee from one of the hospital centers (CHTV 05/16/09/2021). After this approval, the other hospitals did not require a formal request for ethics authorization. They simply accepted the former decision. We also obtained authorization from all heads of the five rheumatology departments involved.
All patients were asked to read and sign an informed consent form after having received information about the study.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Sociodemographic characteristics of patients (n = 102).
| Variable | Value | No. | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Female | 84 | 82.4 |
| Male | 18 | 17.6 | |
| Age | <50 | 30 | 29.4 |
| [50–65) | 41 | 40.2 | |
| ≥65 | 31 | 30.4 | |
| Minimum–Maximum | 27–83 | ||
| Median | 56.5 | ||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 57.0 ± 12.5 | ||
| Marital status | Single | 14 | 13.7 |
| Married/living with a partner | 71 | 69.6 | |
| Divorced/separated | 10 | 9.8 | |
| Widowed | 7 | 6.9 | |
| Employment status | Employed | 51 | 50.0 |
| Not employed | 10 | 9.8 | |
| retired | 37 | 36.3 | |
| housekeeper | 4 | 3.9 | |
| Years of education | No formal education | 2 | 2.0 |
| 4 years | 29 | 28.4 | |
| 5–6 years | 11 | 10.8 | |
| 7–9 years | 17 | 16.7 | |
| 10–12 years | 32 | 31.4 | |
| More than 12 years | 11 | 10.8 | |
| Lifestyle | Smoker | 6 | 5.9 |
| Alcohol drinker | 16 | 15.7 |
Disease characteristics of patients (n = 102).
| Variable | Value | n | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease duration since diagnosis (years) | [0–5) | 58 | 56.9 |
| ≥5 | 44 | 43.1 | |
| Minimum–Maximum | 0–37 | ||
| Median | 4 | ||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 5.6 ± 6.0 | ||
| Subset classification of SSc | Diffuse | 30 | 29.4 |
| Limited | 64 | 62.7 | |
| VEDOSS | 7 | 6.9 | |
| Sine scleroderma | 1 | 1.0 | |
| 2013 ACR/EULAR classification criteria | Skin thickening of the fingers of both hands | 48 | 47.1 |
| Puffy fingers | 28 | 27.5 | |
| Sclerodactyly | 65 | 63.7 | |
| Digital tip ulcers | 31 | 30.4 | |
| Fingertip pitting scars | 28 | 27.5 | |
| Telangiectasia | 64 | 62.7 | |
| Abnormal nailfold capillary | 81 | 79.4 | |
| Pulmonary arterial hypertension | 9 | 8.8 | |
| Interstitial lung disease | 22 | 21.6 | |
| Raynaud’s phenomenon | 96 | 94.1 | |
| Autoantibodies | ANA | 91 | 89.2 |
| Anti-centromere | 59 | 59 | |
| Anti-topoisomerase I | 20 | 19.6 | |
| Anti-RNA polymerase III | 1 | 1.0 | |
| Other antibodies | 13 | 12.7 | |
| GI involvement | Yes | 61 | 59.8 |
| Clinical symptoms 1,2 | 50 | 82.0 | |
| GI pharmacotherapy 2 | 31 | 50.8 | |
| Abnormal GI exams 2 | 34 | 55.7 |
GI: gastrointestinal; VEDOSS: very early diagnosis of systemic sclerosis; ANA: Antinuclear Antibodies; 1 with GI; 2 The percentage was adjusted to the subsample of patients with GI involvement.
Health status and quality of life variables.
| Min | Max | Mean | Sd | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF-36v2 | Physical functioning (PF) | 5.0 | 100.0 | 61.9 | 24.4 |
| Physical role functioning (RP) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 57.0 | 31.4 | |
| Bodily pain (BP) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 49.7 | 22.3 | |
| General health perceptions (GH) | 0.0 | 87.0 | 41.4 | 19.4 | |
| Vitality (VT) | 10.0 | 100.0 | 43.7 | 24.1 | |
| Social role functioning (SF) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 70.1 | 28.6 | |
| Emotional role functioning (RE) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 64.3 | 29.4 | |
| Mental health (MH) | 4.0 | 100.0 | 60.1 | 27.7 | |
| Physical component summary (PCS) | 13.8 | 62.4 | 39.3 | 10.3 | |
| Mental component summary (MCS) | 22.0 | 70.2 | 47.5 | 12.1 | |
| EQ-5D-5L | Index | 0.08 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.20 |
| VAS | 4.0 | 100.0 | 66.8 | 18.7 |
Sd: standard deviation; VAS: visual analogic scale.
Means of UCLA GIT 2.0 for different GI severity symptoms.
| All Sample (n = 102) | No Symptoms |
Mild Symptoms |
Moderate Symptoms (n = 25) | Severe Symptoms (n = 15) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | % | Mean | % | Mean | % | Mean | % | F | Sig. | |
| Reflux | 0.46 | 0.29 | 38.2 | 0.40 | 19.6 | 0.53 | 26.5 | 0.94 | 15.7 | 6.800 | <0.001 |
| Distension/bloating | 0.69 | 0.36 | 34.3 | 0.61 | 41.2 | 1.04 | 8.8 | 1.25 | 15.7 | 8.976 | <0.001 |
| Fecal soilage | 0.16 | 0.12 | 89.1 | 0.08 | 8.9 | 0.24 | 2.0 | 0.20 | 0.0 | 0.482 | 0.695 |
| Diarrhea | 0.36 | 0.20 | 59.8 | 0.58 | 0.0 | 0.52 | 31.4 | 0.43 | 8.8 | 2.991 | 0.035 |
| Social functioning | 0.29 | 0.10 | 60.8 | 0.29 | 13.7 | 0.40 | 19.6 | 0.69 | 5.9 | 7.065 | <0.001 |
| Emotional wellbeing | 0.37 | 0.13 | 53.9 | 0.19 | 20.6 | 0.60 | 11.8 | 0.89 | 13.7 | 8.882 | <0.001 |
| Constipation | 0.47 | 0.00 | 48.0 | 0.25 | 12.7 | 0.75 | 24.5 | 1.75 | 14.7 | 320.246 | <0.001 |
| Total GIT score | 0.39 | 0.20 | 14.7 | 0.36 | 57.8 | 0.56 | 16.7 | 0.73 | 10.8 | 8.164 | <0.001 |
F: Fisher’s F for comparison between no symptoms, mild, moderate or severe; Sig: p-value.
UCLA GIT 2.0 reliability scores.
| UCLA Items | Number of Items | Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha | ICC | ICC 95% IC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reflux | 8 | 0.778 | 0.829 | 0.924 | 0.843–0.964 |
| Distension/bloating | 4 | 0.876 | 0.837 | 0.927 | 0.848–0.965 |
| Fecal soilage | 1 | - | - | 0.784 | 0.552–0.896 |
| Diarrhea | 2 | 0.655 | 0.672 | 0.674 | 0.324–0.843 |
| Social functioning | 6 | 0.849 | 0.865 | 0.851 | 0.691–0.928 |
| Emotional well-being | 9 | 0.898 | 0.939 | 0.853 | 0.696–0.929 |
| Constipation | 4 | - | 0.841 | 0.769 | 0.520–0.888 |
| Total GIT score | 34 | - | 0.954 | 0.912 | 0.817–0.958 |
Total UCLA GIT scores for different levels of sociodemographic and clinical variables.
| n | Mean | SD | |t| or F | Sig | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Total UCLA-GIT | Female | 84 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 1.081 | 0.289 |
| Male | 18 | 0.48 | 0.39 | ||||
| Diarrhea | Female | 84 | 0.27 | 0.46 | 3.783 | <0.001 | |
| Male | 18 | 0.78 | 0.71 | ||||
| Age | Total UCLA-GIT | Less than 50 | 30 | 0.33 | 0.39 | 0.607 | 0.547 |
| (50–65) | 41 | 0.45 | 0.45 | ||||
| 65 or more | 31 | 0.36 | 0.36 | ||||
| Disease duration (years) | Total UCLA-GIT | (0–5) | 58 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.776 | 0.440 |
| 5 or more | 44 | 0.43 | 0.53 | ||||
| Subset classification of SSc | Total UCLA-GIT | Diffuse | 30 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.245 | 0.807 |
| Not diffuse | 72 | 0.38 | 0.48 | ||||
| Sclerodactyly | Total UCLA-GIT | No | 37 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.043 | 0.966 |
| Yes | 65 | 0.39 | 0.48 | ||||
| Digital tip ulcers | Total UCLA-GIT | No | 71 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.517 | 0.607 |
| Yes | 31 | 0.43 | 0.50 | ||||
| Telangiectasia | Total UCLA-GIT | No | 38 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.844 | 0.401 |
| Yes | 64 | 0.42 | 0.46 | ||||
| Anti-centromere | Total UCLA-GIT | No | 41 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 1.317 | 0.191 |
| Yes | 59 | 0.44 | 0.51 | ||||
| GI involvement | Total UCLA-GIT | No | 41 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 2.419 | 0.016 |
| Yes | 61 | 0.48 | 0.43 | ||||
| Reflux | No | 41 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 3.529 | <0.001 | |
| Yes | 61 | 0.60 | 0.58 | ||||
| Distension | No | 41 | 0.43 | 0.67 | 2.876 | 0.002 | |
| Yes | 61 | 0.86 | 0.80 | ||||
| Constipation | No | 41 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 2.628 | 0.005 | |
| Yes | 61 | 0.61 | 0.73 |
SD: standard deviation; t: t-Student value; F: ANOVA value; Sig: p-value.
Spearman’s correlation coefficients between UCLA GIT 2.0 and the EQ-5D-5L and SF-36v2 scales.
| EQ-5D-5L | SF-36v2 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCLA-GIT 2.0 | Index | VAS | PCS | MCS | PF | RP | BP | GH | VT | SF | RE | MH | |
| Reflux | r | −0.302 | −0.323 | −0.368 | −0.289 | −0.359 | −0.342 | −0.444 | −0.381 | −0.429 | −0.359 | −0.312 | −0.310 |
| sig | 0.002 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | |
| Distension/bloating | r | −0.367 | −0.331 | −0.263 | −0.359 | −0.308 | −0.226 | −0.400 | −0.402 | −0.384 | −0.426 | −0.310 | −0.349 |
| sig | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.008 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.022 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | |
| Fecal soilage | r | −0.359 | −0.346 | −0.180 | −0.295 | −0.227 | −0.298 | −0.174 | −0.249 | −0.242 | −0.257 | −0.358 | −0.291 |
| sig | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.070 | 0.003 | 0.022 | 0.002 | 0.080 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.009 | <0.001 | 0.003 | |
| Diarrhea | r | −0.290 | −0.340 | −0.213 | −0.278 | −0.282 | −0.252 | −0.293 | −0.246 | −0.256 | −0.329 | −0.280 | −0.269 |
| sig | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.031 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.011 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.009 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.006 | |
| Social functioning | r | −0.374 | −0.417 | −0.153 | −0.387 | −0.243 | −0.272 | −0.297 | −0.244 | −0.272 | −0.368 | −0.382 | −0.360 |
| sig | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.123 | <0.001 | 0.014 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.013 | 0.006 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Emotional wellbeing | r | −0.532 | −0.439 | −0.265 | −0.444 | −0.370 | −0.348 | −0.328 | −0.406 | −0.393 | −0.472 | −0.424 | −0.433 |
| sig | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.007 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Constipation | r | −0.356 | −0.279 | −0.109 | −0.325 | −0.236 | −0.195 | −0.192 | −0.186 | −0.260 | −0.338 | −0.289 | −0.269 |
| sig | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.276 | 0.001 | 0.017 | 0.050 | 0.054 | 0.062 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.006 | |
| Total GIT score | r | −0.475 | −0.463 | −0.310 | −0.439 | −0.384 | −0.364 | −0.420 | −0.420 | −0.427 | −0.478 | −0.435 | −0.430 |
| sig | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| GI involvement | r | −0.198 | −0.224 | −0.179 | −0.126 | −0.174 | −0.205 | −0.250 | −0.156 | −0.144 | −0.185 | −0.055 | −0.201 |
| sig | 0.046 | 0.024 | 0.072 | 0.207 | 0.081 | 0.039 | 0.011 | 0.119 | 0.150 | 0.063 | 0.583 | 0.043 | |
r: Pearson correlation coefficient; sig: p-value; PF: physical functioning; RP: physical role functioning; BP: bodily pain; GH: general health perceptions; VT: vitality; SF: social role functioning; RE: emotional role functioning; MH: mental health; PCS: physical component summary; MSM: mental component summary.
References
1. Attar, A. Digestive manifestations in systemic sclerosis. Ann. Med. Interne; 2002; 153, pp. 260-264.
2. Vitton, V.; Bazin, C.; Luciano, L.; Granel, B.; Alessandrini, M.; Harle, J.R. Oesophageal motor disorders and oe-sophageal endoscopic involvement in patients with systemic sclerosis: A systematic association?. Scand. J. Gas-Troenterol.; 2021; 56, pp. 508-513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2021.1881813]
3. Pauling, J.D.; McGrogan, A.; Snowball, J.; McHugh, N.J. Epidemiology of systemic sclerosis in the UK: An analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Rheumatology; 2021; 60, pp. 2688-2696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaa680]
4. Steen, V.D.; Medsger, T.A. Severe organ involvement in systemic sclerosis with diffuse scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum.; 2000; 43, pp. 2437-2444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200011)43:11<2437::AID-ANR10>3.0.CO;2-U]
5. McFarlane, I.M.; Bhamra, M.S.; Kreps, A.; Iqbal, S.; Al-Ani, F.; Saladini-Aponte, C.; Atluri, P. Gastrointestinal Man-ifestations of Systemic Sclerosis. Rheumatology; 2018; 8, 235. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30057856]
6. Ponge, T.; Varannes, S.B.D. Digestive involvement of scleroderma. La Rev. du Prat.; 2002; 52, pp. 1896-1900.
7. Tian, X.P.; Zhang, X. Gastrointestinal complications of systemic sclerosis. World J. Gastroenterol.; 2013; 19, pp. 7062-7068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i41.7062] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24222949]
8. Volkmann, E.R.; McMahan, Z. Gastrointestinal involvement in systemic sclerosis: Pathogenesis, assessment and treatment. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol.; 2022; 34, pp. 328-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000899]
9. Thoua, N.M.; Bunce, C.; Brough, G.; Forbes, A.; Emmanuel, A.V.; Denton, C.P. Assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis in a UK tertiary referral centre. Rheumatology; 2010; 49, pp. 1770-1775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq147] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20530510]
10. Khanna, D.; Hays, R.D.; Maranian, P.; Seibold, J.R.; Impens, A.; Mayes, M.D.; Clements, P.J.; Getzug, T.; Fathi, N.; Bechtel, A. et al. Reliability and validity of the university of california, los angeles scleroderma clinical trial consortium gastrointestinal tract instrument. Arthritis Rheum.; 2009; 61, pp. 1257-1263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.24730]
11. Bae, S.; Allanore, Y.; Coustet, B.; Maranian, P.; Khanna, D. Development and validation of French version of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2011; 29, (Suppl. S65), pp. S15-S21.
12. Meijs, J.; Pors, D.; Vliet-Vlieland TP, M.; Huizinga TW, J.; Schouffoer, A.A. Translation, cross-cultural adap-tation, and val-idation of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument (SCTC GIT) 2.0 into Dutch. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.; 2014; 32, (Suppl. S86), pp. S41-S48.
13. Gorga, M.; Mihai, C.; Soare, A.-M.; Dobrotă, R.; Gherghe, A.-M.; Stoica, V. A Romanian version of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2015; 33, (Suppl. S91), pp. S61-S67.
14. Gualtierotti, R.; Ingegnoli, F.; Two, R.; Meroni, P.L.; Khanna, D.; Adorni, G. VERITAS Study Group. Reliability and validity of the Italian ver-sion of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument in pa-tients with sys-temic sclerosis. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.; 2015; 33, (Suppl. S91), pp. S55-S60. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26339890]
15. Low, A.H.L.; Xin, X.; Law, W.G.; Teng, G.G.; Santosa, A.; Lim, A.; Chan, G.; Ng, S.C.; Thumboo, J. Validation of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument 2.0 in English- and Chinese-speaking patients in a multi-ethnic Singapore systemic sclerosis cohort. Clin. Rheumatol.; 2017; 36, pp. 1643-1648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3529-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28058539]
16. Zekovic, A.; Damjanov, N. Validation of Serbian version of UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gas-troin-testinal Tract Instrument in 104 patients with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatol. Int.; 2017; 37, pp. 735-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3680-y]
17. Koller, M.; West, K. Linguistic Validation Manual for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments, By C. Acquadro, K. Conway, C. Girourdet & I. Mear, MAPI ResearchTrust, Lyon, France, 2004,184 pp, ISBN: 2-9522021-0-9, price €70/$90. Qual. Life Res.; 2005; 14, pp. 1791-1792.
18. Mokkink, L.B.; Terwee, C.B.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Stratford, P.W.; Knol, D.L.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol.; 2010; 63, pp. 737-745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494804]
19. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures. Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims; US Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, USA, 2006.
20. Van Den Hoogen, F.; Khanna, D.; Fransen, J.; Johnson, S.R.; Baron, M.; Tyndall, A.; Pope, J.E. 2013 Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Collaborative Initiative: ACR/EULAR Classification Criteria for SSc. Arthritis Rheumatism.; 2013; 65, pp. 2737-2747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.38098]
21. Avouac, J.; Fransen, J.; Walker, U.A.; Riccieri, V.; Smith, V.; Muller, C. EUSTAR Group. Preliminary criteria for the very early diagnosis of systemic sclerosis: Results of a Delphi Consensus Study from EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Re-search Group. Ann. Rheum. Dis.; 2011; 70, pp. 476-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2010.136929]
22. Marighela, T.F.; Arismendi, M.I.; Marvulle, V.; Brunialti MK, C.; Salomão, R.; Kayser, C. Effect of probiotics on gastrointes-tinal symptoms and immune parameters in systemic sclerosis: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology; 2019; 58, pp. 1985-1990. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez160]
23. McMahan, Z.H.; Frech, T.; Berrocal, V.; Lim, D.; Bruni, C.; Matucci-Cerinic, M.; Smith, V.; Melsens, K.; Proudman, S.; Zhang, J. et al. Longitudinal Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Systemic Sclerosis Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease—Sclero-derma Clinical Trials Consortium. Longitudinal Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Systemic Sclerosis Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease—Sclero-derma Clinical Trials Consortium. J. Rheumatol.; 2019; 46, pp. 78-84.
24. Khanna, D.; Furst, D.E.; Maranian, P.; Seibold, J.R.; Impens, A.; Mayes, M.D.; Hays, R.D. Minimally Important Dif-ferences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument. J. Rheumatol.; 2011; 38, pp. 1920-1924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110225] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724699]
25. Taş, Y.M.; Hakim, G.D.; Keskinoğlu, P.; Kenar, G.; Yarkan, H.; Zengin, B.; Akarsu, M. The validity and reliability study of the University of California, Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract (UCLA SCTC GIT) 2.0 questionnaire for the Turkish society. Turk. J. Gastroenterol.; 2019; 30, pp. 234-241.
26. Khanna, D.; Nagaraja, V.; Gladue, H.; Chey, W.; Pimentel, M.; Frech, T. Measuring response in the gastrointes-tinal tract in systemic sclerosis. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol.; 2013; 25, pp. 700-706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bor.0000434668.32150.e5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047604]
27. Ware, J.E., Jr.; Sherbourne, C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care; 1992; 30, pp. 473-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002]
28. Ferreira, P.L. Criação da versão portuguesa do MOS SF-36. Parte I—Adaptação cultural e linguística. Acta MÉDica Port.; 2000; 13, pp. 55-66.
29. Herdman, M.; Gudex, C.; Lloyd, A.; Janssen, M.; Kind, P.; Parkin, D.; Bonsel, G.; Badia, X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res.; 2011; 20, pp. 1727-1736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x]
30. Ferreira, P.L.; Antunes, P.; Ferreira, L.N.; Pereira, L.N.; Ramos-Goñi, J.M. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: The Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual. Life Res.; 2019; 28, pp. 3163-3175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02226-5]
31. Ferreira, P.L.; Pereira, L.N.; Antunes, P.; Ferreira, L.N. EQ-5D-5L Portuguese Population Norms. Eur. J. Health Econ.; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01552-9]
32. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med.; 2016; 15, pp. 155-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27330520]
33. Lisboa, J.V.; Augusto, M.G.; Ferreira, P.L. Estatística Aplicada à Gestão; Vida Económica: Porto, Portugal, 2012.
34. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; 2nd ed. Hillsdale, N.J.L. Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988; 567.
35. Mcmahan, Z.H.; Paik, J.J.; Wigley, F.M.; Hummers, L.K. Determining the Risk Factors and Clinical Features Associated With Severe Gastrointestinal Dysmotility in Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res.; 2018; 70, pp. 1385-1392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.23479] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29193842]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
(1) Background: The UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire has been recognized as a feasible and reliable instrument to assess gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients and their impact on quality of life. The aim of this study was to create and validate UCLA GIT 2.0 for Portuguese patients with SSc. (2) Methods: A multi-center study was conducted enrolling SSc patients. UCLA GIT 2.0 was validated in Portuguese using reliability (internal consistency, item –total correlation, and reproducibility) and validity (content, construct, and criterion) tests. Criterion tests included EQ-5D and SF-36v2. Social–demographic and clinical data were collected. (3) Results: 102 SSc patients were included, 82.4% of them female, and with a mean sample age of 57.0 ± 12.5 years old. The limited form of SSc was present in 62% of the patients and 56.9% had fewer than five years of disease duration. Almost 60% presented with SSc-GI involvement with a negative impact on quality of life. The means for SF-36v2 were 39.3 ± 10.3 in the physical component summary and 47.5 ± 12.1 in the mental component summary. Total GI score, reported as mild in 57.8% of the patients, was highly reliable (ICC = 0.912) and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.954. There was a high correlation between the total GI score and EQ-5D-5L and SF-36v2 scores. (4) Conclusion: The Portuguese version of UCLA GIT 2.0 showed good psychometric properties and can be used in research and clinical practice.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Genrinho, Inês 2
; Santiago, Tânia 3
; Carones, Adriana 3 ; Mazeda, Carolina 4 ; Barcelos, Anabela 5
; Beirão, Tiago 6 ; Costa, Flávio 6
; Santos, Inês 7 ; Couto, Maura 7 ; Rato, Maria 8 ; Terroso, Georgina 8 ; Monteiro, Paulo 7 1 Centre for Health Studies and Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, 3004-512 Coimbra, Portugal
2 Rheumatology Department, Tondela Viseu Hospital Centre, 3504-509 Viseu, Portugal; Rheumatology Department, Baixo Vouga Hospital Centre, 3810-164 Aveiro, Portugal
3 Rheumatology Department, Coimbra and University Health Center, 3004-512 Coimbra, Portugal
4 Baixo Vouga Hospital Centre, Rheumatology Department, Egas Moniz Health Alliance, 3810-164 Aveiro, Portugal; EpiDoC Unit, CEDOC, NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal
5 Baixo Vouga Hospital Centre, Rheumatology Department, Egas Moniz Health Alliance, 3810-164 Aveiro, Portugal; EpiDoC Unit, CEDOC, NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal; Comprehensive Health Research Center (CHRC), NOVA University of Lisbon, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal
6 Rheumatology Department, Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho Hospital Centre, 4434-502 Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
7 Rheumatology Department, Tondela Viseu Hospital Centre Hospital Centre, 3460-525 Tondela, Portugal
8 Rheumatology Department, São João University Hospital Centre Hospital Centre, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal