↓ Skip to main content

Inflammatory bowel disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a systematic review of measurement properties

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inflammatory bowel disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a systematic review of measurement properties
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0753-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin-Lin Chen, Liang-huan Zhong, Yi Wen, Tian-Wen Liu, Xiao-Ying Li, Zheng-Kun Hou, Yue Hu, Chuan-wei Mo, Feng-Bin Liu

Abstract

This review aims to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-specific health-related quality of life instruments. Medline, EMBASE and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched from their inception to May 2016. IBD-specific instruments for patients with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or IBD were enrolled. The basic characteristics and domains of the instruments were collected. The methodological quality of measurement properties and measurement properties of the instruments were assessed. Fifteen IBD-specific instruments were included, which included twelve instruments for adult IBD patients and three for paediatric IBD patients. All of the instruments were developed in North American and European countries. The following common domains were identified: IBD-related symptoms, physical, emotional and social domain. The methodological quality was satisfactory for content validity; fair in internal consistency, reliability, structural validity, hypotheses testing and criterion validity; and poor in measurement error, cross-cultural validity and responsiveness. For adult IBD patients, the IBDQ-32 and its short version (SIBDQ) had good measurement properties and were the most widely used worldwide. For paediatric IBD patients, the IMPACT-III had good measurement properties and had more translated versions. Most methodological quality should be promoted, especially measurement error, cross-cultural validity and responsiveness. The IBDQ-32 was the most widely used instrument with good reliability and validity, followed by the SIBDQ and IMPACT-III. Further validation studies are necessary to support the use of other instruments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 191 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Postgraduate 21 11%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 63 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Psychology 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 75 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2024.
All research outputs
#5,530,015
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#606
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,637
of 315,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#11
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.