↓ Skip to main content

Mapping of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSF-Q) into EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2018
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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Mapping of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSF-Q) into EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-1003-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Monroy, Miguel A. Ruiz, Javier Rejas, Javier Soto

Abstract

The short, self-administered Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Symptom Frequency Questionnaire (GSFQ) is a specific Quality of Life (QoL) instrument which measures the impact of GERD symptoms on QoL. This study aims to map the specific scores in GSFQ into two generic instruments: SF-6D and EQ-5D-3 L, in order to obtain utility estimates derived from the GERD condition. A national representative sample of GERD patients was selected, stratified by gender, age (< 45, ≥45 years) and GERD severity (0-I, II-IV Savary-Miller score) for validation purposes. Age, gender, BMI, GERD diagnose, GERD severity, associated comorbidities and risk factors were recorded. GSFQ, SF-6D, EQ-5D-3 L, and the HRQoL Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were answered by patients. Several mapping methods were estimated, regression using dummy variables, and linear, quadratic and cubic regression using optimal factor scores. The use of a GERD aggregated summary severity derived from the GSFQ was dimed the best predictor. Overall Mean Absolute Error (MAE), overall Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) were used as goodness-of-fit (GOF) indexes to compare models. A total of 3405 patients were recruited by 490 clinicians. Mean age was 49 (±14.4) years and 49.8% were women. Reported comorbidities were clustered in 6 antecedents and 15 concomitant pathologies. Aggregation of levels for the frequency of symptoms items was found more suitable for estimation. Regression weights were found to follow a monotonous progressive pattern. Overall MAE ranged from 0.092 to 0.094 for SF-6D utility prediction and from 0.008 to 0.08 for EQ-5D-3 L, while MAPE values ranged from 27.9 to 29% for SF-6D and from 36.8 to 38.4% for EQ-5D-3 L. Cubic regression GOF demonstrated a better fit. It is possible to translate specific GSFQ scores assessing GERD condition into generic SF-6D and EQ-5D-3 L utility values. Although regression using dummy variables is a suitable mapping procedure, other alternative mapping methods convey better fit, in particular cubic regression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,984,406
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#398
of 2,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,836
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#31
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.