Main Article Content
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the comprehensibility, internalconsistency, patient-physician reliability, and test-retest reliability of the Thai version ofMigraine Disability Assessment (Thai-MIDAS) questionnaire in Thai migraine sufferers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Study participants were recruited from patients diagnosedwith migraine headache according to International Classification of Headache Disordersversion 2 (ICHD-2) criteria who attended the Headache Clinic at Bangkok Hospitalheadquarters. Standard forward and backward translation procedures were used totranslate the MIDAS questionnaire into the Thai-MIDAS version. Patients completedthe Thai-MIDAS questionnaire at baseline (visit 1), after meeting the physician (visit 2),and at the two-week follow up (visit 3) to assess disease severity and comprehensibility,internal consistency, as well as test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: A total of 82 patients, aged between 15 and 54 years were enrolled in thestudy (71 females and 11 males). At baseline, most of the patients had severe migrainedisability (MIDAS grade IV) and severe pain score. All 5 items of the Thai-MIDASquestionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency (ICC 0.95; 95% CI 0.91-0.99).The total Thai-MIDAS score showed good test-retest reliability by Pearson correlationcoefficient (r = 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.88, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrated that the Thai translation of MIDAS isequivalent to the English version of MIDAS in terms of internal consistency andtest-retest reliability. Physicians can reliably use the self-administered tool, the Thai-MIDAS questionnaire, to assess the severity and disability of migraine in Thai patients.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R, et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia 2007;27(3):193-210.
3. Bloudek LM, Stokes M, Buse DC, et al. Cost of healthcare for patients with migraine in five European countries: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). J Headache Pain 2012;13(5):361-78.
4. Stokes M, Becker WJ, Lipton RB, et al. Cost of Health Care Among Patients With Chronic and Episodic Migraine in Canada and the USA: Results From the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Headache 2011;51(7):1058-77.
5. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (HIS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 2013;33(9):629-808.
6. Lipton RB, Buse DC, Saiers J, et al. Healthcare resource utilization and direct costs associated with frequent nausea in episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. J Med Econ 2013;16(4):490-9.
7. DALYs GBD, Collaborators H, Murray CJ, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990-2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet 2015;386(10009):2145-91.
8. Steiner TJ, Birbeck GL, Jensen RH, et al. Headache disorders are third cause of disability worldwide. J Headache Pain 2015;16:58.
9. Lipton RB, Bigal M, Diamond M. Migraine prevalence, disease burden and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007;68:343-9.
10. Loder S, Sheikh HU, Loder E. The prevalence, burden, and treatment of severe, frequent, and migraine headaches in US minority populations: statistics from National Survey studies. Headache 2015;55(2):214-28.
11. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Sawyer J, et al. Clinical utility of an instrument assessing migraine disability: the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache 2001;41(9):854-61.
12. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, et al. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001;56(6 Suppl 1):S20-S8.
13. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res 2003;12(8):963-74.
14. Yang M, Rendas-Baum R, Varon SF, et al. Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) across episodic and chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 2011;31(3):357-67.
15. Dowson AJ. Assessing the impact of migraine. Curr Med Res Opin 2001;17:298-309.
16. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999;53(5):988-94.
17. D'Amico D, Mosconi P, Genco S, et al. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: translation and reliability of the Italian version. Cephalalgia 2001;21(10):947-52.18.Iigaya M, Sakai F, Kolodner KB, et al. Reliability and validity of the Japanese Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire. Headache 2003;43(4):343-52.
18. Ertas M, Siva A, Dalkara T, et al. Validity and reliability of the Turkish Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache 2004;44(8):786-93.
19. Gedikoglu U, Coskun O, Inan LE, et al. Validity and reliability of Turkish translation of Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire in patients with migraine. Cephalalgia 2005;25(6):452-6.
20. Magnoux E, Freeman MA, Zlotnik G. MIDAS and HIT-6 French translation: reliability and correlation between tests. Cephalalgia 2008;28(1):26-34.
21. Zandifar A, Asgari F, Haghdoost F, et al. Reliability and validity of the migraine disability assessment scale among migraine and tension type headache in Iranian patients. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:978064.
22. Shaik MM, Hassan NB, Tan HL, et al. Validity and reliability of the Bahasa Melayu version of the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:435856.
23. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005;8(5):521-33.
24. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.
25. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155-63.)
26. Seethong P, Nimmannit A, Chaisewikul R, et al. Reliability and Validity of Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire-Thai Version (Thai-MIDAS). J Med Assoc Thai 2013;96 Suppl 2:S29-38.