Interpretation of Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores: a prospective matched cohort study

Aleksi Laajala, Timo J Autio, Pasi Ohtonen, Olli-Pekka Alho, Timo J Koskenkorva, Aleksi Laajala, Timo J Autio, Pasi Ohtonen, Olli-Pekka Alho, Timo J Koskenkorva

Abstract

Purpose: Knowledge of disease-specific instruments enables the evaluation of health- related quality-of-life (QoL) change associated with chronic and recurrent tonsillitis in adults. The main objective was to explore the interpretation of scores according to the throat-related QoL instrument, Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 (TOI-14), by determining the typical scores in healthy subjects and patients and define the minimum important change (MIC).

Methods: We performed a prospective matched cohort study in a secondary care area of Oulu University Hospital. The surgical cohort consisted of 42 patients referred to tonsillectomy due to recurrent or chronic tonsillitis. The control cohort consisted of 42 age- and sex-matched healthy controls obtained from the escorts of patients in the same hospital. We translated and validated the Finnish TOI-14 instrument and collected TOI-14 scores at entry and at 6 months and compared results to the anchor question.

Results: At entry, the mean TOI-14 scores were significantly higher in the surgical cohort than in the control cohort [mean (95% confidence interval)] 33.0 (27.0-39.1) vs. 5.0 (3.6-6.4), respectively. At 6 months follow-up, the mean TOI-14 scores had improved markedly after tonsillectomy to the level of the control cohort. In the healthy population, the score was in most cases under 15.0 points. In patients, a score of about 20.0 indicated mild symptoms, 30.0 moderate symptoms and 40.0 or higher intense symptoms. The MIC value was 10.0 points.

Conclusions: These results enable the more accurate interpretation of the scores of the only disease-specific QoL instrument for adult throat-related diseases.

Keywords: Quality-of-life; TOI-14; Tonsillectomy; Tonsillitis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study profile and participant flow in a matched cohort study with a surgical cohort of 42 patients undergoing tonsillectomy and a control cohort of 42 age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory -14 scores a at entry, and b after the 6-month follow-up in a surgical cohort of 42 patients undergoing tonsillectomy and a control cohort of 42 age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects

References

    1. Skevas T, Klingmann C, Plinkert PK, Baumann I. Development and validation of the Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory 14. HNO. 2012;60(9):801–806. doi: 10.1007/s00106-012-2545-7.
    1. Roplekar R, Van M, Hussain SS. Does the quality of life impact of tonsillitis correlate with SIGN guideline compliance? An assessment of range and normality. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(5):481–486. doi: 10.1111/coa.12573.
    1. Powell J, Powell EL, Conroy K, Hopkins C, Moor JW, Wilson JA. Throat-related quality of life in peritonsillar abscess sufferers: application of the adult tonsil outcome inventory. J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127(12):1190–1193. doi: 10.1017/S0022215113003071.
    1. International Society for Quality of Life Research. Available from: . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.
    1. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):1889–1905. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments. Available from: . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
    1. Webropol survey and reporting tool. Available from: . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.
    1. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.
    1. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: Practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11(2):322–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit