Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: The Sino-Nasal-Outcome-Test-22 (SNOT-22) represents the reference questionnaire to assess symptoms, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and treatment-response in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The SNOT-22 has been validated for various languages, yet no validation is available for the German version. Thus, we provide a validation of the SNOT-22 for German. METHODS: In this prospective observational study 139 CRS-patients and 36 control-participants were included. CRS-patients completed the German-SNOT-22 before treatment (T0) and four (T1), twelve (T2) and 48 weeks after inclusion (T3). At T0, Mackay-Naclerio-, Lund-Mackay- and Brief-Symptom-Inventory-18 (BSI-18) scores were collected as external reference for the German-SNOT-22 and its subscales. At T1, T2, and T3 health-transition-items (HTIs) were raised to explore responsivity. Control-participants completed the German-SNOT-22 at T0. Reliability (internal consistency, item-total correlation), validity (concurrent validity, discriminatory validity) and responsiveness (distribution- and anchor-based) were explored for the German-SNOT-22. RESULTS: At T0, the mean German-SNOT-22 total-score for CRS patients was 38.0 (± 20.9) and responded to treatment (T1 = 26.3 ± 19.1; T2 = 25.8 ± 20.6; T3 = 20.5 ± 16.3). For control-participants, the mean total-score at T0 was 15.1 (±10.9). The German-SNOT-22 was reliable (excellent internal consistency α = 0.93; good overall item-total correlations r = 0.39-0.85), valid (significant correlations between Mackay-Naclerio-, Lund-Mackay- and BSI-18 scores, all r > 0.39, p < 0.01) and responsive (significant correlations between HTIs and mean change in German-SNOT-22 total-score F = 9.57, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The German-SNOT-22 validated here matches the original SNOT-22. It is a reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to assess symptoms, HRQOL and treatment-response in CRS-patients. Good psychometric properties were observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riedl et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: