The Hong Kong index of dyspepsia: A validated symptom severity questionnaire for patients with dyspepsia

Abstract

The dyspepsia symptom index was easy to understand, internally consistent and reproducible. It predicted global symptom change, and the symptom severity scores correlated negatively with quality of life.

Proton pump inhibitor versus prokinetic therapy in patients with functional dyspepsia: is therapeutic response predicted by Rome III subgroups?

“…Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from asymptomatic (graded as 1) to incapacitating (graded as 5). The sum of the scores was a validated measurement of dyspepsia severity and a cut-off score of 16 points discriminated dyspeptic subjects [22,23]. The primary outcome of this study was the resolution of dyspeptic symptoms and this was defined as a dyspepsia score of 16 points or less.…”

“…Symptom severity was measured by a questionnaire, the Hong Kong Index, which evaluated 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale. The usefulness of the Hong Kong Index in measuring the severity of dyspepsia has been validated in Chinese patients [22,23].…”

Is Chios mastic gum effective in the treatment of functional dyspepsia? A prospective randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial

“…We used the validated Hong Kong index of Dyspepsia (HKID) (Hu et al, 2002), to assess symptoms at baseline and at the end of treatment. The HKID was administered by an investigator in a face to face interview.…”

A validation study of the Italian Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire

“…As there is no ''gold standard'' for diagnosis of dyspepsia [4][5][6]17], a physician's diagnosis was chosen as a ''quasi-gold standard''. Validity has been established compared with a clinician's diagnosis in previous studies [10,[18][19][20][21][22], while other studies of dyspepsia outcome measures have used different ''gold standard'' comparisons to demonstrate concurrent validity, such as generic quality of life scores [23][24][25][26][27][28], patient self-assessment using diaries [29] and dyspepsia adverse events [30]. In this study, the SF-LDQ had a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 82.5% for dyspepsia when compared to the physicians' ''gold standard''.…”