Proposal of a new scoring formula for the Dermatology Life Quality Index in psoriasis

F. Rencz, L. Gulácsi, M. Péntek, A. K. Poór, M. Sárdy, P. Holló, A. Szegedi, E. Remenyik, V. Brodszky

Research output: Article

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: ‘Not relevant’ responses (NRRs) on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) may occur in up to 40% of patients with psoriasis. As these responses are scored as the item of the questionnaire having no impact on the patients’ lives at all, it is more difficult for these patients to fulfil the DLQI > 10 criterion required by clinical guidelines to become candidates for systemic treatment including biologics. Objectives: We propose a new scoring system for the DLQI that corrects for the bias in the NRR option and test its construct validity in a sample of patients with psoriasis. Methods: Data from 242 patients (104 of whom marked at least one NRR) from two earlier cross-sectional surveys were reanalysed. For each patient, the DLQI score was calculated in two ways: (i) according to the original scoring and (ii) by applying a new scoring formula (DLQI-R) that adjusts the total score for the number of NRRs. The construct validity of the DLQI-R was tested against the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and EQ-5D-3L. Results: The mean DLQI and DLQI-R scores were 9·99 ± 7·52 and 11·0 ± 8·02, respectively. The DLQI-R allowed eight more patients (3·3%) to achieve the ‘PASI > 10 and DLQI > 10’ threshold. The results were robust when limiting the maximum number of NRRs allowed to two or three. Compared with the DLQI, DLQI-R correlated slightly better with PASI (rs = 0·59 vs. 0·57) and EQ-5D-3L index scores (rs = −0·58 vs. −0·54). Conclusions: The DLQI-R seems to be a valid scoring system for avoiding the bias in the NRR option and can help to improve patients’ access to biologics.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Dermatology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - jan. 1 2018

Fingerprint

Dermatology
Psoriasis
Quality of Life
Biological Products
Cross-Sectional Studies
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology

Cite this

Proposal of a new scoring formula for the Dermatology Life Quality Index in psoriasis. / Rencz, F.; Gulácsi, L.; Péntek, M.; Poór, A. K.; Sárdy, M.; Holló, P.; Szegedi, A.; Remenyik, E.; Brodszky, V.

In: British Journal of Dermatology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Article

@article{d4dfc278d38446b59175bf8aa66cd385,
title = "Proposal of a new scoring formula for the Dermatology Life Quality Index in psoriasis",
abstract = "Background: ‘Not relevant’ responses (NRRs) on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) may occur in up to 40{\%} of patients with psoriasis. As these responses are scored as the item of the questionnaire having no impact on the patients’ lives at all, it is more difficult for these patients to fulfil the DLQI > 10 criterion required by clinical guidelines to become candidates for systemic treatment including biologics. Objectives: We propose a new scoring system for the DLQI that corrects for the bias in the NRR option and test its construct validity in a sample of patients with psoriasis. Methods: Data from 242 patients (104 of whom marked at least one NRR) from two earlier cross-sectional surveys were reanalysed. For each patient, the DLQI score was calculated in two ways: (i) according to the original scoring and (ii) by applying a new scoring formula (DLQI-R) that adjusts the total score for the number of NRRs. The construct validity of the DLQI-R was tested against the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and EQ-5D-3L. Results: The mean DLQI and DLQI-R scores were 9·99 ± 7·52 and 11·0 ± 8·02, respectively. The DLQI-R allowed eight more patients (3·3{\%}) to achieve the ‘PASI > 10 and DLQI > 10’ threshold. The results were robust when limiting the maximum number of NRRs allowed to two or three. Compared with the DLQI, DLQI-R correlated slightly better with PASI (rs = 0·59 vs. 0·57) and EQ-5D-3L index scores (rs = −0·58 vs. −0·54). Conclusions: The DLQI-R seems to be a valid scoring system for avoiding the bias in the NRR option and can help to improve patients’ access to biologics.",
author = "F. Rencz and L. Gul{\'a}csi and M. P{\'e}ntek and Po{\'o}r, {A. K.} and M. S{\'a}rdy and P. Holl{\'o} and A. Szegedi and E. Remenyik and V. Brodszky",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bjd.16927",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of Dermatology",
issn = "0007-0963",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proposal of a new scoring formula for the Dermatology Life Quality Index in psoriasis

AU - Rencz, F.

AU - Gulácsi, L.

AU - Péntek, M.

AU - Poór, A. K.

AU - Sárdy, M.

AU - Holló, P.

AU - Szegedi, A.

AU - Remenyik, E.

AU - Brodszky, V.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: ‘Not relevant’ responses (NRRs) on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) may occur in up to 40% of patients with psoriasis. As these responses are scored as the item of the questionnaire having no impact on the patients’ lives at all, it is more difficult for these patients to fulfil the DLQI > 10 criterion required by clinical guidelines to become candidates for systemic treatment including biologics. Objectives: We propose a new scoring system for the DLQI that corrects for the bias in the NRR option and test its construct validity in a sample of patients with psoriasis. Methods: Data from 242 patients (104 of whom marked at least one NRR) from two earlier cross-sectional surveys were reanalysed. For each patient, the DLQI score was calculated in two ways: (i) according to the original scoring and (ii) by applying a new scoring formula (DLQI-R) that adjusts the total score for the number of NRRs. The construct validity of the DLQI-R was tested against the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and EQ-5D-3L. Results: The mean DLQI and DLQI-R scores were 9·99 ± 7·52 and 11·0 ± 8·02, respectively. The DLQI-R allowed eight more patients (3·3%) to achieve the ‘PASI > 10 and DLQI > 10’ threshold. The results were robust when limiting the maximum number of NRRs allowed to two or three. Compared with the DLQI, DLQI-R correlated slightly better with PASI (rs = 0·59 vs. 0·57) and EQ-5D-3L index scores (rs = −0·58 vs. −0·54). Conclusions: The DLQI-R seems to be a valid scoring system for avoiding the bias in the NRR option and can help to improve patients’ access to biologics.

AB - Background: ‘Not relevant’ responses (NRRs) on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) may occur in up to 40% of patients with psoriasis. As these responses are scored as the item of the questionnaire having no impact on the patients’ lives at all, it is more difficult for these patients to fulfil the DLQI > 10 criterion required by clinical guidelines to become candidates for systemic treatment including biologics. Objectives: We propose a new scoring system for the DLQI that corrects for the bias in the NRR option and test its construct validity in a sample of patients with psoriasis. Methods: Data from 242 patients (104 of whom marked at least one NRR) from two earlier cross-sectional surveys were reanalysed. For each patient, the DLQI score was calculated in two ways: (i) according to the original scoring and (ii) by applying a new scoring formula (DLQI-R) that adjusts the total score for the number of NRRs. The construct validity of the DLQI-R was tested against the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and EQ-5D-3L. Results: The mean DLQI and DLQI-R scores were 9·99 ± 7·52 and 11·0 ± 8·02, respectively. The DLQI-R allowed eight more patients (3·3%) to achieve the ‘PASI > 10 and DLQI > 10’ threshold. The results were robust when limiting the maximum number of NRRs allowed to two or three. Compared with the DLQI, DLQI-R correlated slightly better with PASI (rs = 0·59 vs. 0·57) and EQ-5D-3L index scores (rs = −0·58 vs. −0·54). Conclusions: The DLQI-R seems to be a valid scoring system for avoiding the bias in the NRR option and can help to improve patients’ access to biologics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053665638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053665638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bjd.16927

DO - 10.1111/bjd.16927

M3 - Article

JO - British Journal of Dermatology

JF - British Journal of Dermatology

SN - 0007-0963

ER -