Cargando…

The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses

BACKGROUND: Questionnaire-based headache diagnoses should be validated against diagnoses made by the gold standard, which is personal interview by a headache expert. The diagnostic algorithm with the best diagnostic accuracy should be used when later analysing the data. METHODS: The Nord-Trøndelag H...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hagen, Knut, Åsberg, Anders Nikolai, Uhlig, Benjamin L., Tronvik, Erling, Brenner, Eiliv, Sand, Trond
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Milan 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31195960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-1021-0
_version_ 1783450108049752064
author Hagen, Knut
Åsberg, Anders Nikolai
Uhlig, Benjamin L.
Tronvik, Erling
Brenner, Eiliv
Sand, Trond
author_facet Hagen, Knut
Åsberg, Anders Nikolai
Uhlig, Benjamin L.
Tronvik, Erling
Brenner, Eiliv
Sand, Trond
author_sort Hagen, Knut
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Questionnaire-based headache diagnoses should be validated against diagnoses made by the gold standard, which is personal interview by a headache expert. The diagnostic algorithm with the best diagnostic accuracy should be used when later analysing the data. METHODS: The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) was performed between 2017 and 2019. Among HUNT4 participants, a total of 232 (19.3%) out of 1201 randomly invited were interviewed by a headache expert to assess the sensitivity, specificity and kappa value of the questionnaire-based headache diagnoses. RESULTS: The median interval between answering the headache questions and the validation interview was 60 days (95% CI 56–62 days). The best agreements were found for self-reported lifetime migraine (sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 99%, and a kappa statistic of 0.65, 95% CI 0.55–0.75), self-reported active migraine (sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 97%, and a kappa statistic of 0.55, 95% 0.39–0.71), liberal criteria of migraine (sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 93%, and a kappa statistic of 0.58, 95% CI 0.43–0.73) and ICDH3-based migraine ≥1 days/month (sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 94%, and a kappa statistic of 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.68). For headache suffering ≥1 days/month a sensitivity of 90%, specificity 80%, and a kappa statistic of 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0-69 were found. For tension-type headache (TTH) ≥ 1 days/month the agreement was 0.33 (95% CI 0.17–0.49). CONCLUSION: The HUNT4 questionnaire is a valid tool for identifying persons with lifetime migraine, self-reported active migraine and active migraine applying liberal modified criteria. The agreement for TTH was fair.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6734226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Milan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67342262019-09-12 The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses Hagen, Knut Åsberg, Anders Nikolai Uhlig, Benjamin L. Tronvik, Erling Brenner, Eiliv Sand, Trond J Headache Pain Research Article BACKGROUND: Questionnaire-based headache diagnoses should be validated against diagnoses made by the gold standard, which is personal interview by a headache expert. The diagnostic algorithm with the best diagnostic accuracy should be used when later analysing the data. METHODS: The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) was performed between 2017 and 2019. Among HUNT4 participants, a total of 232 (19.3%) out of 1201 randomly invited were interviewed by a headache expert to assess the sensitivity, specificity and kappa value of the questionnaire-based headache diagnoses. RESULTS: The median interval between answering the headache questions and the validation interview was 60 days (95% CI 56–62 days). The best agreements were found for self-reported lifetime migraine (sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 99%, and a kappa statistic of 0.65, 95% CI 0.55–0.75), self-reported active migraine (sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 97%, and a kappa statistic of 0.55, 95% 0.39–0.71), liberal criteria of migraine (sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 93%, and a kappa statistic of 0.58, 95% CI 0.43–0.73) and ICDH3-based migraine ≥1 days/month (sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 94%, and a kappa statistic of 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.68). For headache suffering ≥1 days/month a sensitivity of 90%, specificity 80%, and a kappa statistic of 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0-69 were found. For tension-type headache (TTH) ≥ 1 days/month the agreement was 0.33 (95% CI 0.17–0.49). CONCLUSION: The HUNT4 questionnaire is a valid tool for identifying persons with lifetime migraine, self-reported active migraine and active migraine applying liberal modified criteria. The agreement for TTH was fair. Springer Milan 2019-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6734226/ /pubmed/31195960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-1021-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hagen, Knut
Åsberg, Anders Nikolai
Uhlig, Benjamin L.
Tronvik, Erling
Brenner, Eiliv
Sand, Trond
The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title_full The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title_fullStr The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title_full_unstemmed The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title_short The HUNT4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
title_sort hunt4 study: the validity of questionnaire-based diagnoses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31195960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-1021-0
work_keys_str_mv AT hagenknut thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT asbergandersnikolai thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT uhligbenjaminl thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT tronvikerling thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT brennereiliv thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT sandtrond thehunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT hagenknut hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT asbergandersnikolai hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT uhligbenjaminl hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT tronvikerling hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT brennereiliv hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses
AT sandtrond hunt4studythevalidityofquestionnairebaseddiagnoses