中华皮肤科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (2): 154-160.doi: 10.35541/cjd.20230483

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

特应性皮炎控制工具评估病情控制情况的有效性验证

刘雅妮    赵倩    刘源    张俊艳    王惠平   

  1. 天津医科大学总医院皮肤性病科  天津性传播疾病研究所,天津  300052
  • 收稿日期:2023-08-23 修回日期:2024-08-11 发布日期:2025-02-07
  • 通讯作者: 王惠平 E-mail:huiping1208@163.com
  • 基金资助:

Validation of the atopic dermatitis control tool in assessing disease control

Liu Yani, Zhao Qian, Liu Yuan, Zhang Junyan, Wang Huiping   

  1. Department of Dermatovenereology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital/Tianjin Institute of Sexually Transmitted Disease, Tianjin 300052, China
  • Received:2023-08-23 Revised:2024-08-11 Published:2025-02-07
  • Contact: Wang Huiping E-mail:huiping1208@163.com
  • Supported by:

摘要: 【摘要】 目的 验证特应性皮炎控制工具(ADCT)评估 AD病情控制情况的有效性。方法 采用横断面研究方法,收集 2021年 6月至 2023年 3月于天津医科大学总医院就诊的 AD患者的人口学资料、共患病情况及特应性皮炎控制工具(ADCT)、瘙痒数字评价量表(NRS)、患者湿疹自我检查评分量表(POEM)、皮肤病生活质量指数(DLQI)等疾病评估相关量表信息,通过信度和效度分析验证ADCT的有效性。在POEM应答分类(清除或几乎没有、轻度、中度、重度、极重度)和DLQI应答分类(无影响、影响小、影响中等、影响很大、影响极大)的基础上,通过比较POEM和DLQI相邻患者亚组间ADCT总分平均值的差异来检验ADCT总分的判别能力。根据ADCT评分,将AD患者分为AD未控制组(ADCT评分 ≥ 7分)和AD控制组(ADCT评分<7分),比较两组在ADCT各条目、皮肤瘙痒平均NRS评分、POEM总分、DLQI总分及DLQI各维度评分的差异,以评价ADCT在评估AD患者疾病控制情况的有效性。结果 共纳入338例AD患者,男170例(50.30%),女168例(49.70%),年龄17 ~ 89(41.36 ± 17.63)岁。信度分析显示,ADCT量表的Cronbach′s α系数和折半信度分别为0.886和 0.878(均>0.7),重测信度为0.977(> 0.7,P<0.001)。内容效度分析显示,ADCT各条目与ADCT总分的 Pearson相关系数为0.753 ~ 0.852(均P<0.001);验证性因子分析显示,卡方/自由度比值(χ2/df) = 2.896(< 5),Tucker-Lewis指数为0.976(> 0.9),比较拟合指数为0.991(> 0.9),均方根残差为0.026(< 0.08),近似误差均方根为0.075(< 0.08);聚合效度分析显示,所有观察变量标准化后的因子载荷范围为0.689 ~ 0.905(均>0.500),组合信度为0.896(> 0.700),平均变异抽取量为0.591(> 0.500);效标效度分析显示,ADCT总分与其他患者报告结局指标评分(平均NRS评分、峰值NRS评分、POEM总分、DLQI总分)及DLQI各维度评分的相关系数范围分别为0.649 ~ 0.730和0.303 ~ 0.647,均P<0.001。ADCT总分判别能力分析显示,POEM相邻亚组和DLQI相邻亚组间ADCT总分平均值的差异均有统计学意义(均P ≤ 0.001)。AD未控制组(287例)ADCT各条目评分、平均NRS评分、POEM总分、DLQI总分及DLQI各维度评分均显著高于AD控制组(51例)(均P<0.001)。结论 基于横断面研究,ADCT体现出良好的信效度和总分判别能力,能够高效且可靠地评估患者的疾病控制情况。

关键词: 皮炎, 特应性, 特应性皮炎控制工具, 信度, 效度, 疾病控制, 验证

Abstract: 【Abstract】 Objective To verify the validity of the atopic dermatitis control tool(ADCT) in assessing disease control in patients with atopic dermatitis(AD). Methods Based on a cross - sectional study, demographic data, comorbidities and information on disease assessment - related scales such as the ADCT, the pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS), the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM), and the dermatological life quality index (DLQI) were collected from patients with AD at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital from June 2021 to March 2023. The reliability and validity of the ADCT were assessed using these data. The discrimination power of the ADCT total score was evaluated by comparing the differences in the mean ADCT total scores among adjacent POEM/DLQI subgroups based on POEM/DLQI response classifications (POEM: clear or almost absent, mild, moderate, severe, very severe; DLQI: no effect, mild effect, moderate effect, serious effect, very serious effect). According to the ADCT scores, the AD patients were divided into an uncontrolled AD group (ADCT scores ≥ 7 points) and a controlled AD group (ADCT scores < 7 points). Differences between the above two groups were analyzed in terms of ADCT item scores, mean pruritus NRS scores, POEM total scores, DLQI total scores, and DLQI dimension scores to evaluate the validity of the ADCT in assessing AD disease control. Results A total of 338 patients with AD were included, comprising 170 (50.30%) males and 168 (49.70%) females, and they were aged 17 to 89 (41.36 ± 17.63) years. Reliability analysis showed that the Cronbach′s α coefficient and split-half reliability coefficient of the ADCT were 0.886 and 0.878 respectively (both > 0.70), and the test- retest reliability coefficient was 0.977 (> 0.70, P < 0.001). Content validity analysis showed that the Pearson correlation coefficients between the ADCT item scores and the ADCT total score ranged from 0.753 to 0.852 (all P < 0.001); confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the Chi-square to degree of freedom ratio (χ2/df) was 2.896 (< 5), the Tucker-Lewis index was 0.976 (> 0.9), the comparative fit index was 0.991 (> 0.9), the standardized root mean square residual was 0.026 (< 0.08), and the root-mean-square error of approximation was 0.075 (< 0.08); convergent validity analysis showed that the standardized factor loadings of all observed variables ranged from 0.689 to 0.905 (all > 0.500), combined reliability coefficient was 0.896 (> 0.700), and the average extracted variance value was 0.591 (> 0.500); criterion validity analysis showed that the correlation coefficients of the ADCT total score with other patient - reported outcome measures (the mean pruritus NRS scores, peak pruritus NRS scores, POEM total scores, and DLQI total scores) and DLQI dimension scores ranged from 0.649 to 0.730 and from 0.303 to 0.647, respectively(all P < 0.001). Analysis of the discrimination power of the ADCT total score showed significant differences in the mean ADCT total scores among adjacent POEM/DLQI subgroups (all P ≤ 0.001). The uncontrolled AD group (287 cases) showed significantly increased ADCT item scores, mean pruritus NRS score, POEM total score, DLQI total score, and DLQI dimension scores compared with the controlled AD group (51 cases, all P<0.001). Conclusion The ADCT exhibited good reliability, validity and discriminability based on the cross-sectional study, and can efficiently and reliably assess disease control in AD patients.

Key words: Dermatitis, atopic, Atopic dermatitis control tool, Reliability, Validity, Disease control, Validation

引用本文

刘雅妮 赵倩 刘源 张俊艳 王惠平. 特应性皮炎控制工具评估病情控制情况的有效性验证[J]. 中华皮肤科杂志, 2025,58(2):154-160. doi:10.35541/cjd.20230483

Liu Yani, Zhao Qian, Liu Yuan, Zhang Junyan, Wang Huiping. Validation of the atopic dermatitis control tool in assessing disease control[J]. Chinese Journal of Dermatology, 2025, 58(2): 154-160.doi:10.35541/cjd.20230483