Oromandibular dystonia questionnaire (OMDQ‐25): a valid and reliable instrument for measuring health‐related quality of life

Merz, R.I.; Drw., Jayne; Hawthorne, Maurice

doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02194.x

Cited by 27 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subscales reported. Distribution of individual data given Low grade: Children in cohort and not reported separately.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies attempted to validate the Glasgow Benefit Inventory against another patient-recorded outcome measure. 34,35,46,54,121,127 Five of these compared with another patient-recorded outcome measure 35,46,54,121,127 (Fairley Nasal Questionnaire (FNQ), Blepharospasm Disability Index (BDSI), HUI 3, OMDQ 25). In only one paper was there an attempt to compare the Glasgow Benefit Inventory with a patient-recorded outcome measure Hearing Disability and Handicap Scale (HDHS) and objective testing of hearing outcomes.…”

Section: Validating Case Seriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Hendry

Chin

Swan

et al. 2016

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) is a validated, generic patient-recorded outcome measure widely used in otolaryngology to report change in quality of life post-intervention.Objectives of reviewTo date, no systematic review has made (i) a quality assessment of reporting of Glasgow Benefit Inventory outcomes; (ii) a comparison between Glasgow Benefit Inventory outcomes for different interventions and objectives; (iii) an evaluation of subscales in describing the area of benefit; (iv) commented on its value in clinical practice and research.Type of reviewSystematic review.Search strategy‘Glasgow Benefit Inventory’ and ‘GBI’ were used as keywords to search for published, unpublished and ongoing trials in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google in addition to an ISI citation search for the original validating Glasgow Benefit Inventory paper between 1996 and January 2015.Evaluation methodPapers were assessed for study type and quality graded by a predesigned scale, by two authors independently. Papers with sufficient quality Glasgow Benefit Inventory data were identified for statistical comparisons. Papers with <50% follow-up were excluded.ResultsA total of 118 eligible papers were identified for inclusion. A national audit paper (n = 4325) showed that the Glasgow Benefit Inventory gave a range of scores across the specialty, being greater for surgical intervention than medical intervention or ‘reassurance’. Fourteen papers compared one form of surgery versus another form of surgery. In all but one study, there was no difference between the Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores (or of any other outcome). The most likely reason was lack of power. Two papers took an epidemiological approach and used the Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores to predict benefit. One was for tonsillectomy where duration of sore throat episodes and days with fever were identified on multivariate analysis to predict benefit albeit the precision was low. However, the traditional factor of number of episodes of sore throat was not predictive. The other was surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis where those with polyps on univariate analysis had greater benefit than those without. Forty-three papers had a response rate of >50% and gave sufficient Glasgow Benefit Inventory total and subscales for meta-analysis. For five of the 11 operation categories (vestibular schwannoma, tonsillectomy, cochlear implant, middle ear implant and stapes surgery) that were most likely to have a single clear clinical objective, score data had low-to-moderate heterogeneity. The value in the Glasgow Benefit Inventory having both positive and negative scores was shown by an overall negative score for the management of vestibular schwannoma. The other six operations gave considerable heterogeneity with rhinoplasty and septoplasty giving the greatest percentages (98% and 99%) most likely because of the considerable variations in patient selection. The data from these operations should not be used for comparative purposes. Five papers also reported the number of patients that h...

show abstract

“…Subscales reported. Distribution of individual data given Low grade: Children in cohort and not reported separately.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validating Case Seriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Hendry

Chin

Swan

et al. 2016

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty scales have been assessed for evaluation of different types of dystonia ( [7,42]; [6,10,39,66]; [17,24,38,52,63,64,68,74,79,93,[105][106][107]) ( Table 3). Seven of them, the Blepharospasm Disability Index (BDI), the Cervical Dystonia Impact Scale, the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale, the Craniocervical Dystonia Questionnaire (CDIS), the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), the Vocal Performance Questionnaire (VPQ) and the Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (FMDRS), reached the recommendation status [2] (Table 4).…”

Section: Dystoniamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scales for hyperkinetic disorders: A systematic review

Pietracupa

Bruno

Cavanna

et al. 2015

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hyperkinetic movement disorders represent a heterogeneous group of disorders in which involuntary movements are the prevalent clinical symptoms. The five main categories of hyperkinetic disorders are tremor, dystonia, tics,myoclonus and drug-induced dyskinesia.The severity of hyperkinetic disorders is assessed by all clinicians when they examine a patient; quantifying the severity also provides a means of studying the natural history of a given disorder and the possible effect of new therapeutic interventions. This means that good rating instruments are required in both everyday practice and experimental settings. Unfortunately, the clinical evaluation of these disorders is complicated by the inherent nature and variability over time of involuntary movements. A number of scales have been proposed over the years to study the various hyperkinetic disorders. The aim of this review is to systematically identify all the clinical scales that have been proposed and to classify them according to the criteria developed by the Movement Disorder Society (MDS) task force for rating scales in Parkinson's disease.On the basis of this methodology, a scale may be defined as 'Recommended', 'Suggested' or 'Listed' in decreasing order of value.We found that, although numerous scales aimed at assessing hyperkinetic disorders have been published, their variability in terms of clinimetric properties, availability and effort required to administer them is high. In this evaluation, we identified scales defined as 'Recommended' for the assessment of all forms of hyperkinetic disorders. The situation highlighted by our analysis varies considerably, with several 'Recommended' scales being available for some conditions such as tics or dystonia, but only one being available for myoclonus. This gap needs to be filled by the scientific community through both the development of new clinical tools and there finement of existing ones.

show abstract

“…The Movement Disorders Society Task Force on dystonia rating scales suggested that Oromandibular Dystonias Questionnaire (OMDQ-25) still needs further assessment to be validated and recommended [75]. However, the OMDQ-25 is clinimetrically valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in evaluating psychosocial and health-related change and improvement in OMDy [22]. Generalized dystonia rating scales, such as Burke-Fahn-Marsden Scale and the Unified Dystonia Ranking Scale, include orofacial subcomponents that can be useful in assessing the severity of the OMDy, guiding the treatment, and assessing the clinical response [29] ( Table 2).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Treatment Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Orofacial Dystonia and Other Oromandibular Movement Disorders

Skármeta¹,

Espinoza-Mellado²,

PedroChana³

2018

Dystonia - Different Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orofacial movement disorders (OMD) are a group of conditions that affect the motor aspect of the trigeminal, facial, and hypoglossal cranial nerves. These alterations are produced by pathologic disorders affecting the central nervous system, manifesting as isolated or combined hyperkinetic dysfunctional activities on the masticatory, facial mimic, or tongue musculatures. A comprehensive understanding of orofacial dystonias is essential to identify different variants of OMD that could be easily mislabeled or misdiagnosed. In this chapter, the authors focus on different aspects of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical features, and management of orofacial dystonias and other movement disorders that are poorly recognized but not uncommon presentations of OMD, such as orofacial dyskinesias, drug-induced orofacial reactions, tardive orofacial syndromes, and bruxism.

show abstract

Oromandibular dystonia questionnaire (OMDQ‐25): a valid and reliable instrument for measuring health‐related quality of life

Abstract: The Oromandibular Dystonia Questionnaire (OMDQ-25) is the first reliable and valid instrument to measure health-related quality of life in patients with oromandibular dystonia.

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Scales for hyperkinetic disorders: A systematic review

Orofacial Dystonia and Other Oromandibular Movement Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About