Development of a validated patient-reported symptom metric for pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Qualitative methods

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
BMC Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 2.37). 11/2011; 11(1):126. DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-126
Source: PubMed


Previous attempts to measure symptoms in pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) have not fully included patients and parents in the item development process. We sought to identify and validate key patient self-reported and parent proxy-reported outcomes (PROs) specific to EoE.
We developed methodology for focus and cognitive interviews based on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for PROs, the validated generic PedsQL™ guidelines, and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). Both child (ages 8-12 and 13-18) and parent-proxy (ages 2-4, 5-7, 8-12, and 13-18) interviews were conducted.
We conducted 75 interviews to construct the new instrument. Items were identified and developed from individual focus interviews, followed by cognitive interviews for face and content validation. Initial domains of symptom frequency and severity were developed, and open-ended questions were used to generate specific items during the focus interviews. Once developed, the instrument construct, instructions, timeframe, scoring, and specific items were systematically reviewed with a separate group of patients and their parents during the cognitive interviews.
To capture the full impact of pediatric EoE, both histologic findings and PROs need to be included as equally important outcome measures. We have developed the face and content validated Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Score (PEESS™ v2.0). The PEESS™ v2.0 metric is now undergoing multisite national field testing as the next iterative instrument development phase.

Download full-text


Available from: Kevin Hommel,
  • Source
    • "The consensus recommended treatment, in addition to an elimination diet, is the administration of topical corticosteroids that are swallowed, which was employed in all of the patients who participated in this study [1,2,32]. To realize the full impact of EoE in children, some authors note that the histological findings and professional perception are important for patient assessment through the development of quality of life questionnaires [33]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To understand the clinical characteristics and the diagnostic procedures in pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis and to evaluate the sensitivity of the patients to food and inhalant allergens. A cross-sectional study was performed in 35 children with eosinophilic esophagitis during the time period from January 2010 to January 2011. The clinical and epidemiological data were obtained using a questionnaire and medical chart analysis. The body mass index for age was used for the nutritional evaluation (via the Z score). The sensitivity to foods and inhalants was evaluated by performing a skin prick test and atopy patch test. Patients (35 in total, median age 10 years) with a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis were evaluated. The most prevalent symptoms in the patients were vomiting (71.4%) and abdominal pain (51.4%). Endoscopic alterations were observed in 97.2% of the patients. A good nutritional state was observed in 82.8% of the children. The tests demonstrated the presence of food sensitivities and / or aeroallergens in 27 (77.1%) patients, whereas 8 (22.9%) patients did not test positive in any of the tests performed. Among the patients with positive tests, 24 (68.5%) exhibited sensitivity to aeroallergens and 16 (45.7%) were sensitive to foods. The comparison between the sensitive and insensitive groups displayed statistically significant results with respect to sex, symptom prevalence, and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. The patients evaluated in this study displayed clinical characteristics of eosinophilic esophagitis similar to those reported in the literature. The sensitivity to foods determined by the tests was less than that observed in prior studies; however, a marked sensitivity to aeroallergens was observed. The different allergen sensitivity profiles observed in this study suggests that, similar to asthma, the eosinophiic esophagitis disease may exhibit several phenotypes.
    BMC Research Notes 01/2014; 7(1):47. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-7-47
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This research was aimed to analyze the reports of qualitative researches published in Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN).
    01/2012; 18(4):321. DOI:10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.4.321
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To present the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), review the current diagnostic guidelines for EoE, and present an approach for diagnosis of EoE. It will also highlight selected techniques that are under development that may be useful in the future for diagnosis of EoE. Recently updated guidelines emphasize that EoE is a clinicopathologic condition. Specifically, three criteria must be met to diagnose EoE: clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; an esophageal biopsy with a maximum eosinophil count of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power microscopy field, with few exceptions; and exclusion of other possible causes of esophageal eosinophilia, including proton-pump inhibitor responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE). A PPI trial is typically required both to assess for PPI-REE and to evaluate for the presence of concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease. EoE is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder. Because no single symptom, endoscopic finding, or histopathologic feature is pathognomonic, diagnosis can be challenging. In the future, symptom scores, tissue or serum biomarkers, and genetic testing may play a role in diagnosis, but these methods have yet to be validated and are not yet recommended for routine clinical use.
    Current opinion in gastroenterology 03/2012; 28(4):382-8. DOI:10.1097/MOG.0b013e328352b5ef · 4.29 Impact Factor
Show more