| Accession Number | <strong>00130832-200406000-00006</strong>. |
|---|---|
| Author | Kremer, Bernd |
| Institution | Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical Faculty of University of Maastricht, The Netherlands |
| Title | |
| Source | Current Opinion in Allergy & Clinical Immunology. 4(3):171-176, June 2004. |
| Abstract | Purpose of review: The recent literature on types, development, validation, indications, and limitations of quality of life scales in allergic rhinitis is reviewed. This review does not report clinical trials that included quality of life as an outcome. Recent findings: Today, quality of life measurement is standard in allergic rhinitis. Different disease-specific and generic questionnaires are very well validated and established. Recent research concerns the development or adaptation of questionnaires for specific purposes or populations. Other research focuses on the registration of concomitant illnesses, especially of asthma, taking the model of rhinitis and asthma as 'one airway disease' into account. Recently, the first questionnaire for rhinitis and asthma was presented. Furthermore, attempts have been made to improve the registration of other local or systemic concomitant illnesses, the sensitivity to rapid changes in the patient's condition, and the objectivity of quality of life scales. Summary: Allergic rhinitis is associated with significant impairments of quality of life. Disease-specific quality of life scales offer a better registration of changes in disease-related problems, whereas generic scales allow for a comparison between different disorders and patient populations. Different versions of quality of life scales have been validated for different purposes. Careful selection of quality of life scales is becoming more and more important. The registration of comorbid conditions and of psychological factors influencing quality of life measurement remains a central problem. For research, the combination of disease-specific and generic quality of life scales may offer new perspectives; for clinical use, patient-friendly scales should be used. (C) 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. |