Detailled Information)

Name of the Instrument/Tool European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI)
First Description

Seror R, Ravaud P, Mariette X, et al EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI): development of a consensus patient index for primary Sjögren's syndrome Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2011;70:968-972.

Year 2011
Domains
Concept of constructs Disease activity, Fatigue, Pain, Skin, Symptom severity
Population/Disease Disease specific
Originally developed for Sjögren's syndrome
Other rheumatic diseases
where can be applied (only if validated)
---
Additional population with no rheumatic diseases No
Language: Originally published in English
Available in Language Portuguese
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION
Author/s Seror R, Theander E, Brun JG, et al.
Title Validation of EULAR primary Sjögren's syndrome disease activity (ESSDAI) and patient indexes (ESSPRI).
Journal Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Year 2015
Vol 74
Num ---
Pages 859-866
Country ---
Language English
Other references of interest
Link http://ard.bmj.com/content/70/6/968
Brief Description

Development of the PRO.

Instrument/Tool Translations References
Link http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0482-50042015000500439& …
Brief Description

Validation into Portuguese

DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondence to Dr Raphaèle Seror
E-Mail raphaele.se@gmail.com
Address Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Bicêtre, 78 rue du Général Leclerc, 94275 Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
Website ---
Available ---
Links ---
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT
Type Of Measure NRS
Brief Description ---
Number of Items 3
Range 0-10
Responses options/scale Yes
0-10
Developed for Both
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Method of administration Self-administered
Recommendations to score

The total score is the mean score of the 3 scales.

Score Interpretation The larger the greater the severity of symptoms.
Cut-off points ---
Cut-off points applied to ---
Smallest detectable change if described ---
Smallest detectable change applied to ---
Completion time by the patient <3 minutes
Scoring time by the assessor <1 minutes
Training to score Not necessary
Strengths Easy to use
Limitations ---
MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES
Limitations <5 European languages (English)
Observations ---
1. RELIABILITY
A. Internal Consistency Not Tested
Cronbach's (Describe) ---
B. Reliability intraobserver or test-retest Tested
Continuous scores: intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC)
Dichotomus: Cohen kappa (Describe)

ICC 0.94 (0.89;0.97)

C. Reliability interobserver or Measurement error Not Tested
Standard error of measurement (SEM),
smallest detectable change (SDC) or
Limits of agreement (LoA) (Describe)
---
2. VALIDITY
A. Content validity: face validity Not Tested
Expert opinion (relevance and
comprehensiveness) (Describe)

In previous studies developing the PROFAD and SSI, patients' interviews were conducted to identify the main symptoms and complaints in patients with primary SS. Dryness, discomfort (including pain), global fatigue and mental fatigue were identified as being the main symptoms of patients with primary SS. For sicca features, six components were identified by an intrnational panel of experts as affecting patients with primary SS: ocular, oral, skin, nasal, tracheal and vaginal.

B. Construct Validity:
Structural validity
Tested
Brief Description

Correlations between patient and systemic scores were very low (r ranging from 0.07 to 0.29). Correlation between ESSDAI and ESSPRI was low (r=0.20), as was the correlation between change in ESSDAI and change in ESSPRI (from the baseline to the 6-month visit) (r=0.14).

Hypotheses-testing Not Tested
Brief Description ---
Cross-cultural validity Not Tested
Brief Description ---
C. Criterion validity Not Tested
Comparison with a 'gold standard' Continuous scores:
correlations, ROC curves Dichotomus:
Sensitivity & Specificity (Describe)
---
3. RESPONSIVENESS
Responsiveness Tested
Ability to detect change over
time Multiple methods (Describe)

Responsiveness of patient scores was low in patient experiencing improvement of their symptoms, but was significantly higher for ESSPRI compared to SSI and PROFAD (p=0.006 and 0.049 for SRM comparisons).

SRM −0.37 (−0.60;−0.17)

4. INTERPRETABILITY
Interpretability Not Tested
of responders with the highest/lowest
score Minimal important difference (MID) (Describe)
---
OTHER COMMENTS
Other Comments ---
OUTCOME MEASURE
Outcome Measure ---
Document 1 ESSPRI-PRO.pptx
English version - ESSPRI
Document 2 ESSPRI-Portuguese_validation-study.pdf
Portuguese version (included in the validation article)