Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2606910/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2606910/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 19 Sep, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Gastroenterology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background:Functional dyspepsia (FD) as a non-organic disease, patient self-reporting of its symptoms becomes an important component of clinical outcome assessment. We performed a systematic review using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify the best available patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of FD.

Methods: The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched four databases with no date limit, looking for previously confirmed PROMs for evaluating FD symptoms. An overall rating was then assigned based upon COSMIN guidelines, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of evidence for psychometric properties of included PROMs.

Results: Thirty-three articles covering outcome indicators of 24 patient reports were included. The Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI), Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index (DSSI), Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale (LPDS), Functional Dyspepsia Symptom Diary (FDSD), and Experience Sampling Method-Patient Reported Outcome Measure (ESM‐PROM) showed sufficient content validity and internal consistency, resulting in a Class A recommendation.

Conclusion:NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD and ESM‐PROM are the best currently available PROM to assess FD. However, they failed to assess several important areas. Future research can be continuously improved on this basis.

Functional gastrointestinal disease as a chronic disease is a very common clinical condition encountered in the clinical practice of gastroenterology, and the Rome IV redefines functional gastrointestinal disease as disorders of gut-brain interaction^[1]. Functional dyspepsia (FD) is one of its most common types, divided into postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS). Early satiation and postprandial fullness are the main symptoms of PDS, while epigastric pain and epigastric burning in the upper abdomen are the main symptoms of EPS. In addition, upper abdominal bloating, postprandial nausea and excessive belching are also considered important additional symptoms of FD^{[2, 3]}. The prevalence of functional dyspepsia is 10–30% worldwide and varies between regions, with a higher average prevalence in Asia than in Europe and the Americas^[4–6]. And under the influence of the COVID-19, the incidence and recurrence rates of the disease have increased significantly, consuming a large amount of medical resources and placing a heavy burden on the health care system^[7]. The high incidence and persistence of FD seriously affects the quality of life of patients. However, the pathogenesis of FD has not been fully elucidated so far, and it is generally believed to be associated with multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, with gastrointestinal motility disorders, visceral hypersensitivity, immune dysfunction, altered gastrointestinal microbiota, abnormal gut-brain interactions, psychosocial factors, and genetic susceptibility as existing etiologies^[8]. Because of its complex pathogenesis, the clinical use of pro-gastrointestinal drugs, antacids and antidepressants and other drug therapy has a positive effect. In addition, non-pharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and hypnosis may be effective, but the corresponding research is scarce^[9–12].

Efficacy assessment as an important indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment regimens has been an aspect of general interest in various research areas. However, up to now, there is no "gold standard" for assessing the effectiveness of FD treatment protocols, and the most appropriate assessment scale remains to be determined. FD has been suggested as a group of symptoms originating in the gastric and duodenal regions, without underlying organic, systemic or metabolic disease that might explain the symptoms^[13]. This is why patients' self-reporting of their symptoms becomes an important element of efficacy assessment and is more authentic and credible. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidelines similarly recommend the use of well-defined patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess treatment outcomes^[14]. A recent systematic evaluation summarized the prom of symptom assessment in patients with FD from 1970 to 2017, but has not assessed the risk of bias and level of evidence for psychometric properties^[15]. According to COSMIN guidelines^[16] and GRADE approach^[17], this study attempts to comprehensively analyze the PROMs included in the study, and formulate its recommendation level, so as to select the best PROMs for evaluating FD symptoms and provide reference for clinicians to choose an appropriate curative effect evaluation scale.

Data Sources and Search Strategy

One researcher conducted a literature search in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of science databases on October 7, 2022, with no date restrictions and using English as a filter. The search formula for each database is shown in Supplementary Material 1. In addition, the researchers checked the reference list of the literature read in full for additional relevant citations (Fig. 1).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were original literature from PROMs or psychometric literature, applicable to adult patients with a confirmed FD and published publicly in academic journals in English. Studies were excluded if they were reviews, commentaries or responses to the original study, or abstracts without the full text (presented at a conference). In addition, studies that were not symptom assessments (e.g., scales used to diagnose FD) or that assessed only quality of life, perceived knowledge, or psychology were excluded (Fig. 1). Titles and abstracts found in the literature search were judged independently by two researchers, and for the remaining full-text articles were also independently searched and judged eligible by two reviewers. Both researchers agreed on the inclusion of these articles, and if any inconsistencies arose, agreement was reached by consulting a third researcher. Full-text articles were screened if at least one researcher considered a study relevant based on the abstract, or if there was doubt.

Data analysis

After removing duplicates from four different databases using Endnote software, three researchers extracted data from the included studies using a standardized data collection tool. Two researchers independently evaluated the psychometric properties and methodological quality of the included PROMs using the COSMIN systematic review guidelines ^[16] and cross-checked the results. The GRADE approach was then used to synthesize the level of evidence for the inclusion of each PROMs and to form a final recommendation for the scale. In case of disagreement, it was resolved through consultation and agreement with a third researcher.

(1) COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist ^[18]: COSMIN Bias Risk Checklist is a part of COSMIN Guidelines. The methodological quality of the included scales was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Inventory in five dimensions: very good (V), adequate (A), doubtful (D), insufficient (I), or not assessed (NA). If the risk of bias differs across entries in a measurement characteristic, the overall risk of bias rating (related to the method used) is assessed based on the "lowest score count" principle.

(2) COSMIN quality criteria ^[19]: COSMIN quality criteria is another part of COSMIN guidelines. The psychometric characteristics of the included scales were assessed using the COSMIN quality criteria, and the included PROMs were rated as adequate (+), inadequate (-), inconsistent (+/-), or uncertain (?) based on the results reported in the individual studies. If only one study assessed the psychometric properties of a scale, it was used as an overall quality assessment; if multiple studies jointly assessed a particular psychometric characteristic of a scale, their individual scores were aggregated to provide an overall quality assessment of the instrument.

(3) GRADE approach^[17]: the COSMIN modified GRADE was used to assess the level of evidence of the included scales into 4 dimensions: high (High), moderate (Moderate), low (Low) and very low (Very low).COSMIN assumes that each measured characteristic is of high quality and then downgrades them according to the following 4 components : (i) risk of bias (if there is a serious, very serious, or extremely serious risk of bias, then downgrade by one, two, or three levels, respectively); (ii) inconsistency (if the inconsistency is serious or very serious, then downgrade by one or two levels, respectively); (iii) imprecision (if the sample size is between 50 and 100, then downgrade by one level; if the sample size is < 50, then downgrade by two levels); (iv) indirectness (if it is serious of or very serious indirectness, then the grade was lowered by one or two levels, respectively). The recommended grades were categorized into 3 areas, A (meaning that there was sufficient evidence of content validity and at least low quality evidence of sufficient internal consistency), B (not meeting the criteria for category A or C), and C (having high quality evidence of insufficient psychometric evidence), to determine the best available PROMs for FD symptom assessment based on the content of the assessment.

7776 literatures were retrieved from four databases, and 5883 remained after excluding 1893 duplicate literatures; then, each paper’s title and abstract was read one by one, and finally, 69 articles met the inclusion criteria. After reading the full text and further screening the literature, 33 studies including 24 FD symptom assessment scales were finally included^[20–52] .The details of the selection process can be seen in Fig. 1.

Summary of study data

The general information on the included PROMs is shown in Table 1. The included studies were divided into developmental, validation and intervention studies, the number of patients assessed ranged from 60-3907. Their publication countries were dispersed, with the most scales studied and published in the USA (DHSI, DSSI, SODA, GISSI and FDSD), followed by the UK (GDSS, CDQ, LDQ and SF-LDQ). The number of entries for each PROMs ranged from 5 to 40, with the NDI scale having the highest number of entries, which assessed both symptom and quality of life components; the longest recall period was 24 weeks (GDSS and LDQ), and the shortest recall period was the ESM-PROM which is a real-time assessment. Multiple translated versions are available for the following included PROMs: GSRS, DHSI and NDI (8 translations) and PAGI-SYM (7 translations). English translated version is the most common version in included PROMs (21 of 24), and 5 PROMs (GDSS, LDQ, GIS, FDSD, and ESM-PROM) reported the fill time, but the rest were not mentioned. 14 PROMs were scored using Likert scale (4–7 points), 2 PROMs used an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), and the remaining studies used Rasch model calibration scales, images, or smiley faces for outcome measures. More detailed information can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1

༎Details of the findings.
Scale	Time	Country	Number of items	Recall period	Patients studies	Translated version	Fill in time	Outcome measurement
GSRS	1988–2008	Sweden	15	1 week or 4 weeks	204–853	English, Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Navajo	Undefined	Likert-4
GDSS	1996	United Kingdom	8	24 weeks	230	English, Spanish	4 minutes	Undefined
CDQ	1996	United Kingdom	15	2 weeks	287	English	Undefined	Undefined
LDQ	1998	United Kingdom	9	24 weeks	215	English, Chinese, Italian, Farsi	5 minutes	Likert-5
DHSI	1998–2001	United States	34	4 weeks	690–692	English, Malay, Norwegian, French, Dutch, Italian, German, Spanish	Undefined	Undefined
NDI	1999–2001	Australia	Quality of life component: 25 Symptom checklist: 15	2 weeks	113–589	English, French, Dutch, Italian, German, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic	Undefined	Likert-5
DSSI	2000	United States	20	2 weeks	72	English	Undefined	Likert-5
SODA	2001–2003	United States	17	1 day or 1 week	98-3907	English, Spanish	Undefined	Rasch model
SLDQ	2002	Spain	38	Undefined	63	Spanish	Undefined	Likert-6
HKDI	2002	Hong Kong, China	12	Undefined	130	Chinese	Undefined	Likert-5
PADYQ	2004	Brazil	11	4 weeks	62	English, Brazilian Portuguese	Undefined	Undefined
PAGI-SYM	2004	Germany	20	2 weeks	767	English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Spanish	Undefined	Likert-6
Severity Index of Bologna	2004	Italy	8	Undefined	148	Italian	Undefined	Likert-5
GIS	2005	Australia	10	Undefined	151	English	2–3 minutes	Likert-5
GOS	2006	Canada	10	2 days or 4 weeks	1633	English	Undefined	Likert-7
SF-LDQ	2007	United Kingdom	5	8 weeks	592	English, Indonesian, Urdu	Undefined	Likert-5
GISSI	2015	United States	39	2 weeks or 30 days	934	English	Undefined	Likert-5
LPDS	2013–2016	Belgium	8	1 day	60–225	English, Dutch, French	Undefined	smiley faces
FDSD	2018–2022	United States	8	1 day	102–512	English	1 minute 30 seconds	NRS
SAGIS	2017	Australia	22	1 week	1120	English	Undefined	Likert-5
ESM-PROM	2019–2021	Netherlands	33	Real Time	35–45	English, Dutch	3-5min	NRS
FGI-Checklist	2020	Hong Kong, China	20	1 week	641	English, Chinese	Undefined	Likert-4
a Scale for PDS	2021	China	Undefined	1 day	≥ 100	Chinese	Undefined	smiley faces + VAS
SEQ-DYSPEPSIA	2022	Korea	11	2 weeks	193	English, Korean	Undefined	Likert-5 + cartoon-style images
Note: GSRS = Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, GDSS = Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Index, CDQ = The Clinical Dyspepsia Questionnaire, LDQ = Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire, DHSI = Digestive Health Status Instrument, NDI = Nepean Dyspepsia Index, DSSI = Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index, SODA = Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment, SLDQ = Spanish Language Dyspepsia Questionnaire, HKDI = Hong Kong Dyspepsia Index, PADYQ = Porto Alegre Dyspeptic Symptoms Questionnaire, PAGI-SYM = Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index, GIS = Gastrointestinal Symptom Score, GOS = Global Overall Symptom Scale, SF-LDQ = Short-form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire, GISSI = Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index, LPDS = Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale, FDSD = Functional Dyspepsia Symptom Diary, SAGIS = Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale, ESM-PROM = Experience Sampling Method-Patient Reported Outcome Measure, a Scale for PDS = a Scale for Post-prandial Distress Syndrome, SEQ-DYSPEPSIA = Self-evaluation Questionnaire for Functional Dyspepsia

Content validity assessment

Content validity includes relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility. The content comprehensiveness assessment is shown in Table 2. The included PROMs were evaluated based on FD symptoms as defined by the Rome IV. Seven PROMs (NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD, ESM-PROM, FGI-Checklist and SEQ-DYSPEPSIA) scales can evaluate four core symptoms and three additional symptoms of FD, followed by GOS and GISSI, which can evaluate six discomfort symptoms. The remaining PROMs scales all assessed symptoms incompletely.

The overall evaluation of the content effectiveness is shown in Table 3. The overall content validity of these studies was unsatisfactory for reasons including, but not limited to, unreported content validity or insufficient content comprehensiveness. According to the COSMIN risk of bias assessment checklist, it is found that three of the included PROMs are reported as V (very good), five as A (adequate), nine as D (doubtful), and the rest are not reported. As most scales do not fully assess the core and additional symptoms of functional dyspepsia, the comprehensiveness of the content is compromised and the final measurement characteristics are mostly ± (inconsistent). Only 7 PROMs (NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD, ESM-PROM, FGI checklist, and SEQ-DYSPEPSIA) comprehensively assessed all symptoms of FD with a content validity in comprehensiveness of + (adequate). However, the relevance and comprehensibility of FGI-Checklist and SEQ-DYSPEPSIA have not been reported, so the final content validity score is ± (inconsistent). Eight PROMs (LDQ, NDI, DSSI, SLDQ, GISSI, LPDS, FDSD, and ESM-PROM) were assessed using COSMIN Modified GRADE at a high level of evidence (High), nine at a Moderate level (Moderate) and seven at a low level (Low).

Table 2

Comprehensiveness of the content incorporated into the scale
Patient-reported outcome measures	Core concepts from Rome Ⅳ				Additional concepts from Rome Ⅳ			Total (N = 7)
Patient-reported outcome measures	Epigastric pain	Epigastric burning	Postprandial fullness	Early satiation	Upper abdominal bloating	Postprandial nausea	Excessive belching	Total (N = 7)
GSRS	√				√	√	√	4
GDSS								0
CDQ								0
LDQ	√			√		√	√	4
DHSI			√	√	√	√		4
NDI	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
DSSI	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
SODA	√					√	√	3
SLDQ	√			√	√	√		4
HKDI	√	√			√	√	√	5
PADYQ	√			√	√	√		4
PAGI-SYM	√		√	√	√	√		5
Severity Index of Bologna	√				√			2
GIS	√			√	√	√		4
GOS	√		√	√	√	√	√	6
SF-LDQ						√		1
GISSI	√		√	√	√	√	√	6
LPDS	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
FDSD	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
SAGIS	√			√	√	√	√	5
ESM-PROM	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
FGI-Checklist	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7
a Scale for PDS			√	√				2
SEQ-DYSPEPSIA	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	7

Assessment of the remaining measurement attributes (structural validity, internal consistency, cultural validity/measurement invariance, stability, measurement error, hypothesis testing validity, and responsiveness)

The remaining psychometric attributes assessed are shown in Table 3. In total, the methodological quality of 168 measurement attributes was rated, 39 measurement properties (23.2%) were very good, 36 (21.4%) were adequate, 14 (8.3%) were doubtful and insufficient methodological quality, and the rest (47.0%) were not assessed.

Summary of findings

A summary of the survey results is presented in Table 3. The NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD, and ESM-PROM of the seven PROMs that comprehensively assessed core and additional symptoms of FD had sufficient content validity and at least a low level of evidence of internal consistency to receive a Level A recommendation. The GSRS, LDQ, DHSI, GISSI, and FGI checklists are given a Category C recommendation due to high-quality evidence of inadequate psychometric properties. The rest of the scales are recommended for category B.

Based on the available evidence, the best PROMs for assessing FD symptoms are the NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD, and ESM-PROM, all of which are specific scales for FD symptom assessment. They were developed after conducting patient focus group interviews before development. In addition, FDSD and ESM-PROM are developed according to FDA's recommendations and recommended for use. However, it must be noted that the ESM-PROM had very good content validity but the overall quality of internal consistency was inadequate (0.483 ≤ Cronbach's coefficient ≤ 0.842). In addition, none of the included PROMs were validated for all measured attributes and further research is still needed.

Table 3

Summary of findings. (M: Methodology reported as ‘very good(V)’, ‘adequate(A),’ ‘doubtful(D)’, ‘inadequate(I)’, or ‘not assessed (NA)’. R: Ratings for overall quality reported as sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?). L: Level of evidence using GRADE reported as: High, Moderate, Low, or Very low.)
Patient-reported outcome measures	Content validity			Structural validity			Internal consistency			Cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance			Reliability			Measurement error			Hypothesis testing			Responsiveness			Recommendation
Patient-reported outcome measures	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L	M	R	L
GSRS	NA	༟	Low	A	-	Moderate	V	-	High	V	+	High	A	-	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	C
GDSS	NA	༟	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Moderate	B
CDQ	NA	༟	Low	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	B
LDQ	A	±	High	NA	?	NA	V	-	High	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	High	C
DHSI	D	±	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	-	High	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	A	+	Moderate	C
NDI	A	+	High	A	-	Moderate	V	+	High	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	A
DSSI	A	+	High	D	-	Low	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A
SODA	NA	༟	Low	V	+	High	V	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Low	B
SLDQ	A	±	High	NA	༟	NA	V	+	Moderate	V	+	High	A	+	Low	NA	༟	NA	V	+	Moderate	V	+	Moderate	B
HKDI	D	±	Moderate	D	-	Low	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	B
PADYQ	D	±	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	+	Moderate	A	+	Moderate	A	+	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Low	B
PAGI-SYM	D	±	Moderate	D	-	Low	V	+	High	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	B
Severity Index of Bologna	NA	༟	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	B
GIS	D	±	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	B
GOS	D	±	Moderate	D	-	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	V	+	High	B
SF-LDQ	NA	༟	Low	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Low	B
GISSI	A	±	High	V	+	High	V	-	High	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Low	NA	༟	NA	C
LPDS	V	+	High	D	+	Low	V	+	Moderate	V	+	High	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	V	+	Moderate	V	+	Moderate	A
FDSD	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	A
SAGIS	D	±	Moderate	V	-	High	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	B
ESM-PROM	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	V	-	Low	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Very low	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Very low	NA	༟	NA	A
FGI-Checklist	D	±	Moderate	D	-	Low	V	-	High	NA	༟	NA	I	-	Very low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	C
a Scale for PDS	NA	༟	Low	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	A	-	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Low	NA	༟	NA	B
SEQ-DYSPEPSIA	D	±	Moderate	D	-	Low	V	+	High	NA	༟	NA	A	+	Moderate	NA	༟	NA	NA	༟	NA	D	+	Low	B

A total of 25 PROMs from 33 documents were included in this systematic review to assess their psychometric properties according to COSMIN guidelines. The five PROMs (NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD and ESM-PROM) received an A recommendation and can be considered as the best tool currently available for self-assessment of symptoms in patients with FD. Additional measurement characteristics not currently evaluated should be further investigated in the future to refine the assessment content of the tools.

Summary of existing literature

FD has been considered a symptom-based disease, and patient self-assessment of its symptoms has important implications for the selection of clinical treatment options. However, there is no consensus on the outcome measures of symptoms. The purpose of this study is not to seek a scale to diagnose or identify FD, but to summarize a self-reporting tool for FD patients' symptoms and to assess symptom changes throughout treatment from a patient's perspective to understand treatment effects. We systematically assessed the psychometric properties of the 24 included PROMs according to the COSMIN guidelines, enriching the current study to some extent. The long recall periods for most tools do not meet the relevant FDA recommendations and are prone to recall bias, which is detrimental to the accuracy of the results. Of the study instruments included in this study, only the modified versions of the SODA, LPDS, FDSD, and PDS symptom scales had a one-day recall period, and the ESM-PROM is a real-time assessment that provides a more realistic response to patients' current symptoms. It is worth noting that the time required to complete most scales is still unclear. In addition, all except the ESM-PROM are assessed on paper, which may be influenced by patient compliance and the prevailing environment.

The NDI is a scale developed by an international group of gastroenterologists and methodologists, which includes components for both symptom assessment and quality of life assessment. Since its development it has been used many times as an outcome indicator in randomized controlled clinical trials and has been widely recognized. The current study concludes that a change in NDI score of at least 10 points may reflect a change in clinical patient symptoms ^[53]. Some studies have evaluated the psychological measurement characteristics of NDI quality of life subscale, but there is no single evaluation of symptom scale at present^[54].. The symptom assessment scale, which provides information on the frequency and severity of patients' symptoms, is an important aspect of assessing the efficacy of treatment regimens and should be further tested for validity and credibility. In addition, the NDI short form SF-NDI was not included in this study because it only evaluates quality of life^[55]. The DSSI is a validated tool for self-assessment of symptoms in patients with FD, developed through literature research, patient focus group interviews, and discussion and communication with gastroenterologists. However, its cross-cultural validity, hypothesis testing and responsiveness have not been evaluated. Its translation version is relatively small, which is not conducive to further promotion and application. Designed and developed for patients with PDS, the LPDS is comprehensive and has good reliability and has been approved by the European Medicines Agency for the assessment of clinical symptoms in patients with PDS. In addition, the entries included in the LPDS also include EPS symptoms such as epigastric pain and epigastric burning, but the validity and reliability of the scale have not been validated in patients with EPS. Further studies should be conducted to understand the variability of the assessment in the two subgroups of the FD population. Both the FDSD and the ESM-PROM were developed under FDA guidance recommendations with very good content validity, and multiple interviews were conducted with patients at the beginning of development to understand patients' perception of symptoms and comprehension of the scale items. They all take less time to fill in the information and use an 11-point numeric rating scale for outcome measures, with the difference that the FDSD has a 1-day recall period but the ESM-PROM is a real-time assessment which is more useful for documenting fluctuations in FD symptoms. Unfortunately, the structural validity and responsiveness of these two instruments have not been reported in studies. Future studies may further investigate in this area.

Study implications

As a chronic disease, FD is persistent and has a high recurrence rate, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients and imposes an economic burden on patients and their families, as well as putting pressure on the health care system. At present, many scholars have devoted themselves to the research of effective ways to treat FD, but there are great differences in the tools chosen to test the treatment plan, and no consensus has been reached. The selection of sensitive and efficient FD-specific scales is of great importance in the field of clinical gastroenterology, as inappropriate scales are not conducive to detecting the ultimate efficacy of treatment protocols and can even be misleading ^[56]. To date no studies have used the COSMIN guidelines to systematically evaluate the FD symptom assessment scale. The present study underwent a rigorous screening of the literature to finally summarize 24 specific and non-specific scales that can be used to assess FD symptoms. We were guided by the COSMIN guidelines to assess their psychometric properties. According to the available evidence, NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD and ESM-PROM are the best tools for self-symptom assessment of FD patients, covering all the core symptoms and additional symptoms of FD and being managed by patients themselves, which is more conducive to reflecting patients' cognition of their own symptoms. Currently unreported measurement attributes can be further explored in future studies to refine the scale assessment content. This study summarizes and evaluates the existing FD efficacy assessment tools from the patient's perspective in order to provide a reference for future clinical studies. Health care providers can choose the most appropriate tool for their study needs.

Suggestions For Future Development

Real-time symptom assessment

Long instrument recall periods may produce recall bias, and it is recommended to use real-time assessments to understand the dynamics of FD patients' symptoms. The empirical sampling method (ESM), a widely used method in the field of psychiatry, is also important for the real-time symptom assessment of FD patients. An ESM-based method for FD symptom assessment has been reported with significant results. Researchers can install the corresponding program on patients' cell phones, push the content and set reminders at regular intervals every day, and patients only need to complete the assessment content within the reminder time every day^{[57, 58]}. This real-time dynamic assessment helps the investigator to understand the changes in symptoms at each time period and provide personalized treatment. It is less influenced by the environment and location, which results in better patient compliance compared to paper mass scales. In addition, ESM provides insight into the individual characteristics and behavioral patterns of each patient and reduces the cost of investigation. In the future, the relevant analysis of big data can be used to understand the onset of each treatment option and provide personalized treatment in the context of patient differences to help make the right clinical decisions^[59]. It is important to note that the number of scales filled out daily should not be too many and the time required to fill them out should not be too long, as this may lead to a decrease in patient compliance and may affect the accuracy of the results. Moreover, investigators can use incentive policies to increase patient response rates and facilitate the smooth conduct of the study. We believe that real-time symptom assessment based on ESM may be an important future development direction, which needs to be thoroughly studied and further explored.

Use of pictograms

The validity of pictograms has been recognized in the expert consensus on FD published in Japan and Europe respectively ^{[2, 12]}. Some studies have shown that the use of pictograms enhances patients' understanding and memory of verbal representations of the scale, and improves the variability of patient and physician ratings of symptoms^[60]. Four of the PROMs included in this study added pictograms with good results: the LPDS and PDS symptom assessment scales both used smiley faces as outcome measures, the FDSD added pictures of the stomach to help patients understand the range of symptoms, and the SEQ-DYSPEPSIA added cartoonish images of symptoms to facilitate patients' understanding of the corresponding symptoms. In addition, the ESM-PROM also suggested that the use of pictograms should be increased in the future. Clinical patients may have some differences in understanding the wording of the scale due to their education and environment. Adding pictures close to life in the scale can help patients better understand the contents of the items and increase the accuracy of the survey results. It should be noted that studies using pictograms are still limited, and even fewer PROMs use them as outcome measures. The validity of pictogram use should be further evaluated in future studies in large sample clinical randomized controlled trials to promote the use of pictograms in FD symptom assessment scales.

Strengths And Limitations Of This Systematic Review

As a non-organic disease, patient self-reporting of symptoms in FD is an important aspect of outcome assessment. However, no studies have systematically evaluated the measurement properties of PROMs in this area based on COSMIN guidelines. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the measurement characteristics of these instruments to recommend the most appropriate tool for assessing symptoms in patients with FD. In this systematic review, we conducted a comprehensive search in four large databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of science), and conducted a search in the list of references included in the study to avoid missing the literature. Then, we use the applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen the literature, and used the COSMIN risk of bias checklist, COSMIN quality criteria, COSMIN Modified GRADE ratings to assess the methodological quality, measurement characteristics, and level of evidence of the included studies. Two independent reviewers were evaluated and cross-checked separately, and discrepancies were discussed and agreed upon with a third reviewer. A potential limitation of the systematic review is that although we made detailed screening efforts not to miss any significant studies, omissions may occur. Secondly, the recommendations made by our review do not necessarily imply that PROMs with low recommendation ratings are of unacceptable quality, but only that the symptom content they assessed may be incomplete and require further studies for assessing their measurement characteristics.

This systematic review suggests that five PROMs (NDI, DSSI, LPDS, FDSD, and ESM-PROM) can currently be recommended for the assessment of symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia. However, they failed to assess several important areas. Future research can be continuously improved on this basis and may be warranted to focus on these scales to enhance and expand the use of these measurement tools.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Competing interests

There is no conflict of interest between the authors.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Authors' contributions

Xinai Wang: design this research, write the first draft and revise the language and characters. Hao Liu and Wenjing Li: reviewing the literature and prepared table 1-3. Hongling Xiao: rechecking the manuscript and putting forward suggestions for amendment. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

The funders had no additional role in the design of the study, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Authors' information (optional)

Xinai Wang, Wenjing Li and Hao Liu are all from the Graduate School of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China. Hongling Xiao is a professor at the School of Nursing, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.

Drossman DA, Tack J, Ford AC, et al. Neuromodulators for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction): A Rome Foundation Working Team Report[J]. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1140–1171e1.
Wauters L, Dickman R, Drug V, et al. United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) consensus on functional dyspepsia[J]. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2021;9(3):307–31.
Taylor F, Reasner DS, Carson RT, et al. Development of a Symptom-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Functional Dyspepsia: A Preliminary Conceptual Model and an Evaluation of the Adequacy of Existing Instruments[J]. Patient. 2016;9(5):409–18.
Ford AC, Mahadeva S, Carbone MF, et al. Functional dyspepsia[J]. Lancet. 2020;396(10263):1689–702.
Mahadeva S, Ford AC. Clinical and epidemiological differences in functional dyspepsia between the East and the West[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28(2):167–74.
Aziz I, Palsson OS, Törnblom H, et al. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and associations for symptom-based Rome IV functional dyspepsia in adults in the USA, Canada, and the UK: a cross-sectional population-based study[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(4):252–62.
Gubatan J, Zikos T, Spear Bishop E et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms and healthcare utilization have increased among patients with functional gastrointestinal and motility disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic[J].Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2021:e14243.
Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Functional Dyspepsia: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches[J]. Drugs. 2020;80(13):1319–36.
Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Black CJ, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis: efficacy of drugs for functional dyspepsia[J]. Volume 53. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics; 2021. pp. 8–21. 1.
Madisch A, Andresen V, Enck P, et al. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia[J]. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(13):222–32.
Masuy I, Van Oudenhove L, Tack J. Review article: treatment options for functional dyspepsia[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;49(9):1134–72.
Miwa H, Nagahara A, Asakawa A, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for functional dyspepsia 2021[J]. J Gastroenterol. 2022;57(2):47–61.
Wauters L, Talley NJ, Walker MM, et al. Novel concepts in the pathophysiology and treatment of functional dyspepsia[J]. Gut. 2020;69(3):591–600.
Guidance for industry. : patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79.
Smeets FGM, Masclee A, a M, Conchillo JM et al. Systematic review: Disease-specific instruments to assess gastrointestinal symptoms in functional dyspepsia[J].Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 2018, 30(8).
Prinsen C, C, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.
Alhazzani W, Guyatt G. An overview of the GRADE approach and a peek at the future[J]. Med J Aust. 2018;209(7):291–2.
Mokkink LB, De Vet HC, Prinsen W a. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures[J]. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires[J]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
Svedlund J, Sjödin I, Dotevall G. GSRS–a clinical rating scale for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 1988;33(2):129–34.
El-Omar EM, Banerjee S, Wirz A, et al. The Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score - A tool for the global measurement of dyspepsia[J]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996;8(10):967–71.
Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Russell I, et al. Developing a condition-specific measure of health for patients with dyspepsia and ulcer-related symptoms[J]. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(5):565–71.
Moayyedi P, Duffett S, Braunholtz D, et al. The Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire: a valid tool for measuring the presence and severity of dyspepsia[J]. Volume 12. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics; 1998. pp. 1257–62. 12.
Shaw M, Talley NJ, Adlis S, et al. Development of a digestive health status instrument: tests of scaling assumptions, structure and reliability in a primary care population[J]. Volume 12. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics; 1998. pp. 1067–78. 11.
Talley NJ, Haque M, Wyeth JW, et al. Development of a new dyspepsia impact scale: the Nepean Dyspepsia Index[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13(2):225–35.
Leidy NK, Farup C, Rentz AM, et al. Patient-based assessment in dyspepsia - Development and validation of Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index (DSSI)[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45(6):1172–9.
Rabeneck L, Cook KF, Wristers K, et al. SODA (severity of dyspepsia assessment): a new effective outcome measure for dyspepsia-related health[J]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(8):755–65.
Talley NJ, Verlinden M, Jones M. Quality of life in functional dyspepsia: responsiveness of the Nepean Dyspepsia Index and development of a new 10-item short form[J]. Volume 15. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics; 2001. pp. 207–16. 2.
Goldman J, Conrad DF, Ley C, et al. Validation of Spanish Language Dyspepsia Questionnaire[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 2002;47(3):624–40.
Hu WHC, Lam KF, Wong YH, et al. The Hong Kong index of dyspepsia: A validated symptom severity questionnaire for patients with dyspepsia[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (Australia). 2002;17(5):545–51.
Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Goldstein JL, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) in a randomized clinical trial of a COX-2-specific inhibitor and traditional NSAID therapy[J]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(1):32–9.
Rabeneck L. Measuring dyspepsia-related health in randomized trials: the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) and its use in treatment with NSAIDs and COX-2-specific inhibitors[J]. Rheumatology. 2003;42:32–9.
De Luca L, Zagari RM, Pozzato P, et al. Measuring dyspepsia: A new severity index validated in Bologna[J]. Dig Liver Disease. 2004;36(12):806–10.
Rentz AM, Kahrilas P, Stanghellini V, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the patient assessment of upper gastrointestinal symptom severity index (PAGI-SYM) in patients with upper gastrointestinal disorders[J]. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(10):1737–49.
Revicki DA, Rentz AM, Tack J, et al. Responsiveness and interpretation of a symptom severity index specific to upper gastrointestinal disorders[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(9):769–77.
Sander GB, Mazzoleni LE, Francesconi CFM, et al. Development and validation of a cross-cultural questionnaire to evaluate nonulcer dyspepsia: The Porto Alegre Dyspeptic Symptoms Questionnaire (PADYQ)[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 2004;49(11–12):1822–9.
Adam B, Liebregts T, Saadat-Gilani K, et al. Validation of the gastrointestinal symptom score for the assessment of symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22(4):357–63.
Van Veldhuyzen SJ, Chiba N, Armstrong D, et al. Validation of a 7-point Global Overall Symptom scale to measure the severity of dyspepsia symptoms in clinical trials[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23(4):521–9.
Fraser A, Delaney BC, Ford AC, et al. The Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire validation study[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25(4):477–86.
Kulich KR, Madisch A, Pacini F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire in dyspepsia: A six-country study[J]. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; 2008. p. 6.
Carbone F, Holvoet L, Vandenberghe A, et al. Functional Dyspepsia: Outcome of Focus Groups for the Development of a Questionnaire for Symptom Assessment in Patients Suffering From Postprandial Distress Syndrome (PDS)[J]. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(5):728–S728.
Crowell MD, Umar SB, Lacy BE, et al. Multi-Dimensional Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index: Validation of a Brief GI Symptom Assessment Tool[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(8):2270–9.
Carbone F, Vandenberghe A, Holvoet L, et al. Validation of the Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale, a questionnaire for symptom assessment in the functional dyspepsia/postprandial distress syndrome[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44(9):989–1001.
Koloski NA, Jones M, Hammer J, et al. The Validity of a New Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale (SAGIS) for Evaluating Symptoms in the Clinical Setting[J]. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(8):1913–22.
Taylor F, Higgins S, Carson RT, et al. Development of a Symptom-Focused Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Functional Dyspepsia: The Functional Dyspepsia Symptom Diary (FDSD)[J]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(1):39–48.
Smeets FGM, Keszthelyi D, Vork L et al. Development of a real-time patient-reported outcome measure for symptom assessment in patients with functional dyspepsia using the experience sampling method[J].Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 2019, 31(2).
Chan Y, Cheong PK, Fang FF, et al. A symptom severity questionnaire for patients suffering from functional gastrointestinal disorder: FGI-Checklist[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;35(7):1130–5.
Klaassen T, Smeets FGM, Vork L, et al. Psychometric evaluation of an experience sampling method-based patient-reported outcome measure in functional dyspepsia[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(9):e14136.
Xiao M, Ying J, Zhao Y et al. Developing a Scale for the Evaluation of People With Post-prandial Distress Syndrome[J].Frontiers in Public Health, 2021,9.
Jung K, Jung H-K, Kwon JG, et al. Development and Validity Assessment of a Self-evaluation Questionnaire for Functional Dyspepsia: A Multicenter Prospective Study in Korea[J]. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022;28(1):111–20.
Shi X, Luo H, Wang X, et al. Functional dyspepsia symptom diary is correlated with other questionnaires and associated with severity in patients with functional dyspepsia: a multicenter, prospective observational study[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2022.
Shaw MJ, Beebe TJ, Adlis SA, et al. Reliability and validity of the digestive health status instrument in samples of community, primary care, and gastroenterology patients[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15(7):981–7.
Jones M, Talley NJ. Minimum clinically important difference for the Nepean Dyspepsia Index, a validated quality of life scale for functional dyspepsia[J]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1483–8.
Jones MP, Sato YA, Talley NJ. The Nepean Dyspepsia Index is a valid instrument for measuring quality-of-life in functional dyspepsia[J]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31(3):329–33.
Mahadeva S, Wee H-L, Goh K-L, et al. Quality of life in South East Asian patients who consult for dyspepsia: Validation of the short form Nepean Dyspepsia Index[J]. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; 2009. p. 7.
Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis[J]. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.
Bastiaansen JA, Meurs M, Stelwagen R, et al. Self-monitoring and personalized feedback based on the experiencing sampling method as a tool to boost depression treatment: a protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (ZELF-i)[J]. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):276.
Riese H, Von Klipstein L, Schoevers RA, et al. Personalized ESM monitoring and feedback to support psychological treatment for depression: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (Therap-i)[J]. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):143.
Van Os J, Verhagen S, Marsman A, et al. The experience sampling method as an mHealth tool to support self-monitoring, self-insight, and personalized health care in clinical practice[J]. Depress Anxiety. 2017;34(6):481–93.
Tack J, Carbone F, Holvoet L, et al. The use of pictograms improves symptom evaluation by patients with functional dyspepsia[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40(5):523–30.

Supplementary Material 1 is not available with this version.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 19 Sep, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Gastroenterology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
06 Jun, 2023
Reviews received at journal
04 May, 2023
Reviews received at journal
30 Mar, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
27 Mar, 2023
Reviews received at journal
27 Mar, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
09 Mar, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
09 Mar, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
09 Mar, 2023
Editor invited by journal
09 Mar, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
09 Mar, 2023
First submitted to journal
20 Feb, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and COSMIN Analysis

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Data Sources and Search Strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data analysis

Results

Summary of study data

Content validity assessment

Summary of findings

Discussion

Summary of existing literature

Study implications

Suggestions For Future Development

Real-time symptom assessment

Use of pictograms

Strengths And Limitations Of This Systematic Review

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1