Psychometric validation of the SF-36<Superscript>®</Superscript> Health Survey in ulcerative colitis: results from a systematic literature review

Purpose

To conduct a systematic literature review of the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the SF-36^® Health Survey (SF-36) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

Methods

We performed a systematic search of electronic medical databases to identify published peer-reviewed studies which reported scores from the eight scales and/or two summary measures of the SF-36 collected from adult patients with UC. Study findings relevant to reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were reviewed.

Results

Data were extracted and summarized from 43 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Convergent validity was supported by findings that 83% (197/236) of correlations between SF-36 scales and measures of disease symptoms, disease activity, and functioning exceeded the prespecified threshold (r ≥ |0.40|). Known-groups validity was supported by findings of clinically meaningful differences in SF-36 scores between subgroups of patients when classified by disease activity (i.e., active versus inactive), symptom status, and comorbidity status. Responsiveness was supported by findings of clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores following treatment in non-comparative trials, and by meaningfully larger improvements in SF-36 scores in treatment arms relative to controls in randomized controlled trials. The sole study of SF-36 reliability found evidence supporting internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.70) for all SF-36 scales and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.70) for six of eight scales.

Conclusions

Evidence from this systematic literature review indicates that the SF-36 is reliable, valid, and responsive when used with UC patients, supporting the inclusion of the SF-36 as an endpoint in clinical trials for this patient population.

     

Motives for Filing a False Allegation of Rape

The list of motives by Kanin (1994) is the most cited list of motives to file a false allegation of rape. Kanin posited that complainants file a false allegation out of revenge, to produce an alibi or to get sympathy. A new list of motives is proposed in which gain is the predominant factor. In the proposed list, complainants file a false allegation out of material gain, emotional gain, or a disturbed mental state. The list can be subdivided into eight different categories: material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret. To test the validity of the list, a sample of 57 proven false allegations were studied at and provided by the National Unit of the Dutch National Police (NU). The complete files were studied to ensure correct classification by the NU and to identify the motives of the complainants. The results support the overall validity of the list. Complainants were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behavior such as adultery or skipping school. Some complainants, however, reported more than one motive. A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said that they did not know why they filed a false allegation. The results confirm the complexity of motivations for filing false allegations and the difficulties associated with archival studies. In conclusion, the list of Kanin is, based on the current results, valid but insufficient to explain all the different motives of complainants to file a false allegation.     

Modelo Point-of-Care Ultrasound en Atención Primaria: ¿herramienta de alta resolución?

Point-of-Care Ultrasound is a method of performing a rapid clinical ultrasound, with the aim of responding to a clinical question immediately. This is not an ultrasound performed systematically as the radiologists do, nor does it pretend to replace it. It is useful in some kind of screening (abdominal aortic aneurysm) and is of special interest in ultrasound-guided procedures (joint infiltration by injection).It allows to adapt the derivations, minimising the uncertainty, ruling out certain pathologies due to its high diagnostic precision. It can also lead to overdiagnosis, if the examinations carried out are not limited to the organs on which our clinical suspicion is based.Ultrasound is one tool more in the diagnostic process, but its use must be limited to certain clinical situations. Its use in early detection of prevalent diseases in Primary Care should be properly evaluated. On the other hand with more evidence of a high diagnostic accuracy in a large list of pathological conditions.