Critical appraisal of studies measuring quality of life in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Objective: To critically evaluate studies purporting to measure quality of life (QOL) or health-related QOL (HRQOL) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) by assessing the face validity of studies via a predefined set of criteria based on Gill and Feinstein (1994).

Methods: Systematic review was conducted of studies in Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo purporting to measure QOL or HRQOL in JIA. Studies were evaluated based on a set of 8 yes/no criteria set forth by Gill and Feinstein in 1994.

Results: Thirty-four of 50 studies (68%) purported to measure HRQOL, 13 of 50 (26%) measured QOL, and 3 of 50 (6%) measured both QOL and HRQOL. The descriptive analysis of studies is as follows: 22 of 50 studies (44%) explained and defined the authors' meaning of QOL or HRQOL, 42 of 50 studies (84%) stated and explained the domains of the instruments used to measure QOL and HRQOL, authors gave reasons for using a particular instrument in 25 of 50 studies (50%), 14 of 50 studies (28%) asked the patients to give their own global rating, 4 of 50 study authors (8%) tried to differentiate QOL from HRQOL, 5 of 50 authors (10%) provided an opportunity for patients to add items to an instrument, 30 of 50 study authors (60%) reported providing the patients with an opportunity to rate items of importance, and 18 of 50 studies (36%) reported an overall composite score for QOL or HRQOL.

Conclusion: Our results show that the face validity of studies measuring QOL in JIA is not up to the standards and recommendations set forth by Gill and Feinstein in 1994.