Validity and reliability of Persian translation of the Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time (BEST) questionnaire.

Background: Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time (BEST) is one of the self-reported tools for evaluation of the severity and track the response of treatment of borderline personality disorder. The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of Persian Translation of the Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time (BEST) Questionnaire and to compare it with a semi-structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II (SCID-II). Methods: The questionnaire was translated into Persian and then, the content and face validities of the questionnaire were determined. The translated BEST questionnaire and SCID-II were conducted on 33 outpatients and 32 hospitalized patients with diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and 30 patients' companions. Forty-five patients completed the questionnaire again in an interval between 7 to 45 days. The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, paired sample t-test, and the Pearson correlation coefficient and Cronbach's α coefficient. Results: This study evaluates the content validity, face validity, and criterion validity and reliability of the Persian version of the BEST Questionnaire. The mean scores of the BEST questionnaire were 45.6, 39.2, and 24.3 in in-patients, outpatients, and controls, respectively (p=0.001). The mean scores of the BEST questionnaire were 43.7 in the first evaluation, and 41.4 in the second one (r=0.619, p<0.001). Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.761, and it reached to 0.898 after omitting items 13 to 15. The questionnaire had a two-factor structure, including internal turmoil and the disturbance in interpersonal relationships. Conclusion: The Persian version of the BEST Questionnaire has a high face and content validity, high criterion validity, moderate to high reliability, and an acceptable two-factor structure.

Establishment and evaluation of a simplified evaluation system of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

PURPOSE: In recent years, a variety of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) evaluation systems have been developed worldwide; however, they are not so convenient for the doctors clinically, we decided to establish and evaluate a simplified evaluation system of ARDS (SESARDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 140 ARDS patients (derivation data set) were collected to screen for prognostic factors affecting outcomes in ARDS patients. By logistic regression analysis, scores were allocated to corresponding intervals of the variables, respectively, by means of analysis of the frequency distribution to establish a preliminary scoring system. Based on this primary scoring system, a definitive evaluation scheme was created through consultation with a panel of experts. The scores for the validation data set (92 cases) were assigned and calculated by their predictive mortality with the SESARDS and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II). The performance of SESARDS was compared with that of APACHE II by means of statistical analysis. RESULTS: The factors of age, pH, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), oxygenation index (OI), and the lobes of lung were associated with prognosis of ARDS respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SESARDS for the validation data set were 96.43% and 58.33%, respectively. On the AUC, no significant difference between APACHE II and SESARDS was detected. There were no significant differences between the prediction and the actuality obtained by SESARDS for the validation data set the SESARDS scores were positively correlated with the actual mortality. CONCLUSION: SESARDS was shown to be simple, accurate and effective in predicting ARDS progression.

Establishment and Evaluation of a Simplified Evaluation System of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

PURPOSE: In recent years, a variety of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) evaluation systems have been developed worldwide; however, they are not so convenient for the doctors clinically, we decided to establish and evaluate a simplified evaluation system of ARDS (SESARDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 140 ARDS patients (derivation data set) were collected to screen for prognostic factors affecting outcomes in ARDS patients. By logistic regression analysis, scores were allocated to corresponding intervals of the variables, respectively, by means of analysis of the frequency distribution to establish a preliminary scoring system. Based on this primary scoring system, a definitive evaluation scheme was created through consultation with a panel of experts. The scores for the validation data set (92 cases) were assigned and calculated by their predictive mortality with the SESARDS and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II). The performance of SESARDS was compared with that of APACHE II by means of statistical analysis. RESULTS: The factors of age, pH, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), oxygenation index (OI), and the lobes of lung were associated with prognosis of ARDS respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SESARDS for the validation data set were 96.43% and 58.33%, respectively. On the AUC, no significant difference between APACHE II and SESARDS was detected. There were no significant differences between the prediction and the actuality obtained by SESARDS for the validation data set the SESARDS scores were positively correlated with the actual mortality. CONCLUSION: SESARDS was shown to be simple, accurate and effective in predicting ARDS progression.