Development and validation of the self-administered Fibromyalgia Assessment Status: a disease-specific composite measure for evaluating treatment effect.
BACKGROUND
The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) is a composite disease-specific measure validated for fibromyalgia (FM), but it is rarely used in clinical practice. The objective was to develop and analyse the psychometric properties of a new composite disease-specific index (Fibromyalgia Assessment Status, FAS), a simple self-administered index that combines a patient's assessment of fatigue, sleep disturbances and pain evaluated on the basis of the 16 non-articular sites listed on the Self-Assessment Pain Scale (SAPS) in a single measure (range 0 to 10).


METHODS
The FAS index was constructed using a traditional development strategy, and its psychometric properties were tested in 226 FM patients (209 women, 17 men); whose disease-related characteristics were assessed by means of an 11-numbered circular numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances and general health (GH), the tender point score (TPS), the SAPS, the FIQ, and the SF-36. A group of 226 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients was used for comparative purposes. Of the 179 FM patients who entered the follow-up study, 152 completed the three-month period and were included in the responsiveness analyses. One hundred and fifty-four patients repeated the FAS questionnaire after an interval of one week, and its test/re-test reliability was calculated. Responsiveness was evaluated on the basis of effect size and the standardised response mean.


RESULTS
The FAS index fulfilled the established criteria for validity, reliability and responsiveness. Factor analysis showed that SAPS and fatigue contributed most, and respectively explained 47.4% and 31.2% of the variance; sleep explained 21.3%. Testing for internal consistency showed that Cronbach's alpha was 0.781, thus indicating a high level of reliability. As expected, closer significant correlations were found when FAS was compared with total FIQ (rho = 0.347; P < 0.0001) and the FIQ subscales, particularly job ability, tiredness, fatigue and pain (all P < 0.0001), but the correlation between FAS and the mental component summary scale score (MCS) of the SF-36 (rho = -0.531; P < 0.0001) was particularly interesting. Test/re-test reliability was satisfactory. The FAS showed the greatest effect size. The magnitude of the responsiveness measures was statistically different between FAS (0.889) and the FIQ (0.781) (P = 0.038), and between the SF-36 MCS (0.434) and the SF-36 physical component summary scale score (PCS) (0.321) (P < 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
The self-administered FAS is a reliable, valid and responsive disease-specific composite measure for assessing treatment effect in patients with FM.
Salaffi
Fausto
F
Department of Rheumatology, Polytechnic University of the Marche Medical School, Via dei Colli 52, Jesi, Ancona, Italy. fsalaffi@tin.it
Sarzi-Puttini
Piercarlo
P
Girolimetti
Rita
R
Gasparini
Stefania
S
Atzeni
Fabiola
F
Grassi
Walter
W
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D005356:Fibromyalgia / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000379:methods*; D011788:Quality of Life; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
Z Rheumatol. 1998;57 Suppl 2:94-6
10025093
J Rheumatol. 1991 May;18(5):728-33
1865419
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1025-36
9817120
Ann Rheum Dis. 1997 Apr;56(4):268-71
9166001
Pain. 2003 Dec;106(3):337-345
14659516
Pain. 2001 Jan;89(2-3):127-34
11166468
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 May;50(5):529-40
9180645
J Rheumatol Suppl. 2005 Aug;75:6-21
16078356
Arthritis Care Res. 1989 Dec;2(4):122-31
2487716
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jun;37(6):353-65
17976693
Clin Rheumatol. 2006 Sep;25(5):619-31
16421646
J Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;34(6):1261-5
17444590
J Rheumatol. 2003 Feb;30(2):369-78
12563698
J Rheumatol. 2006 Nov;33(11):2291-9
16960921
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002 Apr;2(2):119-28
19807324
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jul 15;59(7):952-60
18576290
J Rheumatol. 1991 Oct;18(10):1558-63
1765981
Pain. 2007 Mar;128(1-2):128-35
17055648
Pain. 2002 Dec;100(3):271-279
12467998
Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Feb;33(2):160-72
2306288
Ann Rheum Dis. 1990 Nov;49(11):916-20
2256738
J Rheumatol. 2008 Aug;35(8):1550-8
18597409
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Nov;45(11):1409-15
16621922
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Apr;52(4):1196-204
15818661
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Apr;67(4):536-41
17644548
Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):405-13; discussion 415-20
11763203
Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Jan;39(1):34-40
8546736
Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Jun;24(3):203-11
15549501
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003 Jul-Aug;21(4):459-64
12942697
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Mar 09;8:27
17349056
Trials. 2007 Nov 26;8:38
18039364
Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Mar;31(3):315-24
3358796
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
3972947
Clin J Pain. 2000 Jun;16(2):110-20
10870723
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
1593914
Lancet. 1999 Oct 9;354(9186):1248-52
10520633
Am J Sports Med. 1998 Nov-Dec;26(6):764-72
9850776
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Sep-Oct;23(5):628-36
16173238
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):19-28
7818567
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001 Jan;40(1):95-101
11157148
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2007 Nov-Dec;25(6 Suppl 47):69-81
18021510
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Sep-Oct;23(5 Suppl 39):S154-62
16273800
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Apr;44(4):940-6
11315933
J Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;34(6):1415-25
17552068
Eur J Pain. 2004 Aug;8(4):385-94
15207520
J Rheumatol. 2008 Nov;35(11):2094-105
18792996
Nurs Res. 1986 Nov-Dec;35(6):382-5
3640358
Eur J Pain. 2004 Dec;8(6):555-65
15531224
Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4 Suppl):AS131-44
7723441
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Nov-Dec;23(6):829-39
16396701
J Rheumatol. 2000 Nov;27(11):2683-91
11093454
Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68
2720055