The validity and reliability of quality of life questionnaires in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

He, Qian; Luo, Jing; Chen, Jiaqi; Yang, Jianying; Yao, Chuanhui; Xu, Caiqin; Tao, Qingwen

doi:10.1186/s12955-022-02026-5

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in this systematic review

From: The validity and reliability of quality of life questionnaires in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference	Study design	Country (language)	HRQoL tools	Patients’ characteristics				PROM properties
Reference	Study design	Country (language)	HRQoL tools	Sample size(N)	Age (Y, M ± SD)	Male N (%)	Disease duration (Y, M ± SD)	Internal consistency	COSMIN (MQ)	Test–retest reliability	COSMIN (MQ)
Doward et al. [8]	cross-sectional study	UK(English)	ASQOL	129	(46.10 ± 12.40)	93 (72%)	19.60	0.91;0.92	Inadequate	r = 0.92	Adequate
Doward et al. [8]	cross-sectional study	Netherlands (English)	ASQOL	119	(46.10 ± 12.40)	93 (72%)	20.80	0.89;0.90	Inadequate	r = 0.91	Adequate
Haywood et al. [14]	cross-sectional study	England (English)	EuroQol	451(349)	(46.10 ± 12.60)	259 (74.2%)	NR	NR	NR	closed format: ICC = 0.88 blind format: ICC = 0.82	Adequate
Haywood et al. [14]	cross-sectional study	England (English)	SF-12	451 (349)	(46.10 ± 12.60)	259 (74.2%)	NR	0.91	Very good	NR	NR
Jenks et al. [15]	cohort study	New Zealand (English)	ASQOL	63	43.30	40 (63%)	8.90	0.854	Very good	rho = 0.73	Very good
Doward et al. [16]	RCT	United States (English)	ASQOL	148	(44.70 ± 12.50)	111 (75%)	(11.00 ± 10.30)	0.85	Very good	r = 0.85	Very good
Duruöz et al. [17]	cross-sectional study	Turkish (English)	ASQOL	277	(42.20 ± 11.60)	80 (28.9%)	(9.40 ± 9.40)	0.89	Very good	ICC = 0.96	Adequate
Leung et al. [18]	cross-sectional study	Singapore (English)	ASQOL	183	(39.50 ± 13.70)	141 (77%)	NR	Chinese: α = 0.93 English: α = 0.86	Very good	ICC = 0.86	Very good
Ariza-Ariza et al. [19]	cross-sectional study	Spain (Spanish)	ASQOL	54	(40.50 ± 10.50)	37 (68.5%)	NR	0.86	Very good	r = 0.98	Very good
Haywood et al. [20]	cross-sectional study	England (English)	ASQOL	271	(46.10 ± 12.60)	259 (74.2%)	NR	0.92	Very good	ICC = 0.96	Very good e
Haywood et al. [20]	cross-sectional study	England (English)	RLDQ	179	(46.10 ± 12.60)	259 (74.2%)	NR	0.93	Very good	ICC = 0.95	Adequate
Fallahi et al. [21]	cross-sectional study	Iran (English)	ASQOL	163	(37.74 ± 9.88)	129 (79%)	(14.49 ± 8.47)	0.91	Very good	ICC = 0.97	Adequate
Pham et al. [22]	cross-sectional study	French (English)	ASQOL	139	(40.90 ± 13.70)	76 (54.6%)	(13.10 ± 11.30)	0.9	Very good	ICC = 0.89	Adequate
Zhao et al. [23]	RCT	China (English)	ASQOL	18	(31.80 ± 8.80)	102 (89%)	(8.80 ± 7.00)	NR	NR	NR	NR
Hamdi et al. [24]	cross-sectional study	Tunisian (French)	ASQOL	18	(38.35 ± 12.26)	84 (84.8%)	(11.30 ± 9.40)	0.93 (0.86–0.95)	Very good	ICC = 0.875(0.79–0.92)	very good
Hoepken et al. [25]	cross-sectional study	Germany (English)	ASQOL	37	(41.90 ± 11.80)	26 (70.3%)	(9.70 ± 9.10)	0.79	Very good	r = 0.77	very good
Kwan et al. [26]	cross-sectional study	Singapore (English)	SF-36	22	(40.70 ± 10.80)	16 (72.7%)	(9.20 ± 9.40)	0.87	Very good	r = 0.84	very good
Haywood et al. [27]	multicenter cross-sectional survey	Spain (English)	PGI	24	(38.00 ± 9.00)	19 (79.2%)	(12.20 ± 8.90)	0.84	NR	r = 0.77	very good
Öncülokur et al. [28]	cross-sectional study	Sweden (English)	EASi-QoL	9	(37.60 ± 9.10)	8 (88.9%)	(11.40 ± 9.40)	0.81	Very good	r = 0.85	Very good
Haywood et al. [29]	cross-sectional study	England (English)	EASi-QoL	612	(50.80 ± 12.20)	434 (71.6%)	(17.30 ± 11.70)	PF:0.90 DA:0.88 EW:0.91 SP:0.92	Very good	PF: ICC = 0.93 DA: ICC = 0.88 EW: ICC = 0.90 SP: ICC = 0.90	Adequate
El Miedany al. [30]	cross-sectional study	Arabic (English)	CASQ-QoL	122	(38.90 ± 8.70)	NR	(12.10 ± 4.20)	0.96–0.97	Very good	r = 0.9	Very good
Graham et al. [31]	cross-sectional study	Greece (English)	ASQOL	92 (87)	(49.60 ± 11.50)	63 (68.5%)	NR	0.92	Very good	r = 0.98	Doubtful
Liu et al. [32]	cross-sectional study	China (Chinese)	SQOL-AS	37	(28.12 ± 7.63)	50 (84.7%)	NR	0.54–0.91	Very good	NR	NR
Boonen et al. [33]	cohort study	Netherlands (English)	EQ-5D	254	(41.40 ± 13.70)	8 (80%)	(10.90 ± 5.70) vs (14.90 ± 9.30)	NR	NR	ICC = 0.55	Doubtful
Boonen et al. [33]	cohort study	Netherlands (English)	SF-6D	254	(41.40 ± 13.70)	8 (80%)	(10.90 ± 5.70) vs (14.90 ± 9.30)	NR	NR	ICC = 0.68	Doubtful
Guilleminet al. [34]	cohort study	China (Chinese)	modified AS-AIMS2	146	(47.30 ± 12.80)	98 (67.1%)	(18.10 ± 11.90)	0.78–0.91	Very good	Physical: ICC = 0.90, Affect: ICC = 0.70, Symptoms: ICC = 0.81, Role: ICC = 0.81, Social interaction: ICC = 0.90	Doubtful

HRQoL, health-related quality of life; ASQOL, the ankylosing spondylitis quality of life questionnaire; EASi-QoL, the evaluation of ankylosing spondylitis quality of life questionnaire; RLDQ, the revised Leeds disability questionnaire; CASQ-QOL, the combined AS questionnaire for quality of life questionnaire; PGI, the patient-generated index; SF-36, the short form-36 health survey; SF-12, the short form-12 health survey; modified AS-AIMS2, the ankylosing spondylitis-arthritis impact measurement scales 2; SQOL-AS, an ankylosing spondylitis patient quality of life measurement scale. PF, physician function; DA, disease activity; EW, emotional well-being; SP, social participation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; NR, not report

Back to article page

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Contact us