1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 27th July 2020 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Guest, the DecodeME study has announced £3.2m of funding, click here to read about it.
    Dismiss Notice

The DePaul Symptom Questionnaire-2: a validation study, 2019, Sunnquist et al

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Sep 13, 2019.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    10,027
    Likes Received:
    72,984
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Paywall, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21641846.2019.1653471
    Not currently available via Sci hub
     
    MSEsperanza, Woolie, Anna H and 9 others like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,258
    Likes Received:
    119,701
    Location:
    UK
  3. Ravn

    Ravn Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    8,709
    One thing they consistently miss is the effect of pacing. Somebody pacing well will report lower frequency and severity of symptoms than somebody not pacing at all, irrespective of severity.
     
  4. Ravn

    Ravn Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    8,709
    I'm not sure I understand what that means. Does the DSQ have a practical purpose? Who is supposed to use it, in what situation, to what end?
    The paper has this to say, but it's rather vague:
     
  5. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    15,105
    It's supposed to be used to assess whether one meets criteria for ME (mostly based on the CCC and possibly the ICC with some tweaks). Those using it would be researchers and possibly clinicians.

    The 'eight-factor domain' roughly corresponds to the symptom requirements for the Canadian Consensus Criteria, although more loosely (e.g., fever and flu = immune, temperature dysregulation = neuroendocrine, etc).

    Then there's a severity and frequency score used to assess whether symptoms occur at least half the time with moderate or worse severity. Again, this is a requirement of the CCC and ICC.

    In research, this might confirm a clinician's diagnosis. In clinical settings, it might be used with exclusionary testing and a full work-up to confirm the diagnosis.

    This latest version tweaks the questions, especially after Jason's survey on PEM led to some more specific questions being highlighted.
     
  6. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,710
    Likes Received:
    23,801
    Location:
    UK
    I think Jason's group are one of the few to look at how to operationalize criteria whether in a clinical or research setting. Its a real issue with many of the criteria that it is easy to list symptoms but much harder for a doctor is know how to use the criteria and what the symptom criteria are (especially for GPs and non ME specialists). Some criteria have the same symptom names but different descriptions.

    So I think the work on the DSQ is very important although I think it would be good to have other groups look at the problem to get multiple view points.
     
    Woolie, Anna H, ladycatlover and 11 others like this.
  7. Wilhelmina Jenkins

    Wilhelmina Jenkins Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    1,366
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Absolutely right. We need a lot more work on operationalizing criteria. We are nowhere near where we should be on this. It’s essential for good, replicable research.
     
    Anna H, Annamaria, mango and 8 others like this.
  8. Ravn

    Ravn Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    8,709
    Yes, I can see that there are issues with just handing a set of diagnostic criteria to doctors and expecting them to be able to apply them correctly - and I am pleased somebody is working on developing better tools, they are sorely needed.

    But I don't think the DSQ-2 is quite there yet. The two main issues I have with this instrument are

    1) that it doesn't take into account the effect of pacing (as mentioned in my previous post #3) and

    2) the description of PEM is insufficient. Yes, all the symptoms listed under PEM are relevant, but all the other separately listed symptoms typically also increase during PEM and that's not made very clear.

    If anything needs operationalising from the existing diagnostic criteria it's PEM. That's the bit virtually nobody understands (and almost everyone confuses with common or garden exercise intolerance). Everything else shouldn't be a problem for doctors to recognise and tick off, maybe with a little additional guidance on severity. But PEM - that they need help with, and much more specific guidance than this instrument offers.

    My impression is that this instrument has been devised by people who know their subject too well. They know what they mean, and the sort of experienced patients to give feedback also know what they mean, but they can't see any more how it reads through the eyes of somebody who knows nothing.
     
    Anna H, Graham, Annamaria and 4 others like this.
  9. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    10,027
    Likes Received:
    72,984
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK

Share This Page