Exploring the Content Validity of the Unified Wilson Disease Rating Scale: Insights from Qualitative Research.

INTRODUCTION: Wilson disease (WD) is a rare metabolic disorder of impaired copper transport manifesting in hepatic, neurological, and psychiatric symptoms. To evaluate the clinical symptoms of WD in clinical trials, a group of clinicians created the Unified Wilson Disease Rating Scale (UWDRS). Content validity of this scale has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the content validity of the UWDRS Part II from the patient perspective. METHODS: This study utilized multiple qualitative research methods including concept elicitation interviews, concept/instrument mapping, and cognitive debriefing interviews. RESULTS: Concept elicitation interviews with a sample of patients with WD and one or more neurological signs/symptoms identified several signs, symptoms, and impacts related to neurological dysfunction, strengthening our understanding of the importance of the neurological aspects of the WD patient experience. Mapping neurological concepts to Part II and III items of the UWDRS showed complete coverage of all salient neurological concepts and near complete coverage of all neurological concepts reported by patients in concept elicitation interviews. Item debriefing of Part II of the UWDRS revealed that patients generally found the items clear and personally relevant to their experience with WD. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings from this study provide evidence for the content validity of the UWDRS Part II and supportive evidence for the content validity of Part III. The UWDRS should be used in conjunction with additional clinical outcomes assessments, specifically those evaluating the hepatic and psychiatric signs/symptoms of WD, to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the WD patient experience.

Variation in Endoscopic Activity Assessment and Endoscopy Score Validation in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE. METHODS: For the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8). RESULTS: The distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11). CONCLUSION: Assessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112.

Public speaking maxim No. 101. The corpse is more comfortable than the eulogizer at a funeral.

Making a presentation can be a grueling experience. But imagine making one without any preparation--as a job candidate, no less.

Everything I needed to know about medical management I learned in acting school.

Some people are doctors. Some people play them on TV. Brian Meltzer could probably do both. A physician executive at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Meltzer relies on skills he learned in acting school to help manage business decisions. In the first of several essays for The Physician Executive, Meltzer explains how acting can help you become a better leader.