Development Process and Cognitive Testing of CARATkids - Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children

Background: Allergic rhinitis and asthma (ARA) are chronic inflammatory diseases of the airways that often coexist in children. The only tool to assess the ARA control, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is to be used by adults. We aimed to develop the Pediatric version of Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARATkids) and to test its comprehensibility in children with 4 to 12 years of age. Methods: The questionnaire development included a literature review of pediatric questionnaires on asthma and/or rhinitis control and two consensus meetings of a multidisciplinary group. Cognitive testing was carried out in a cross-sectional qualitative study using cognitive interviews. Results: Four questionnaires to assess asthma and none to assess rhinitis control in children were identified. The multidisciplinary group produced a questionnaire version for children with 17 questions with illustrations and dichotomous (yes/no) response format. The version for caregivers had 4-points and dichotomous scales. Twenty-nine children, 4 to 12 years old, and their caregivers were interviewed. Only children over 6 years old could adequately answer the questionnaire. A few words/expressions were not fully understood by children of 6 to 8 years old. The drawings illustrating the questions were considered helpful by children and caregivers. Caregivers considered the questionnaire complete and clear and preferred dichotomous over the 4-points scales. The proportion of agreement between children and their caregivers was 61%. The words/expressions that were difficult to understand were amended. Conclusion: CARATkids, the first questionnaire to assess a child’s asthma and rhinitis control was developed and its content validity was assured. Cognitive testing showed that CARATKids is well-understood by children 6 to 12 years old. The questionnaire’s measurement properties can now be assessed in a validation study.

Upper Arm Measurements of Healthy Neonates Comparing Ultrasonography and Anthropometric Methods

Objective: To compare measurements of the upper arm cross-sectional areas (total arm area,arm muscle area, and arm fat area of healthy neonates) as calculated using anthropometry with the values obtained by ultrasonography. Materials and methods: This study was performed on 60 consecutively born healthy neonates: gestational age (mean6SD) 39.661.2 weeks, birth weight 3287.16307.7 g, 27 males (45%) and 33 females (55%). Mid-arm circumference and tricipital skinfold thickness measurements were taken on the left upper mid-arm according to the conventional anthropometric method to calculate total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area. The ultrasound evaluation was performed at the same arm location using a Toshiba sonolayer SSA-250AÒ, which allows the calculation of the total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area by the number of pixels enclosed in the plotted areas. Statistical analysis: whenever appropriate, parametric and non-parametric tests were used in order to compare measurements of paired samples and of groups of samples. Results: No significant differences between males and females were found in any evaluated measurements, estimated either by anthropometry or by ultrasound. Also the median of total arm area did not differ significantly with either method (P50.337). Although there is evidence of concordance of the total arm area measurements (r50.68, 95% CI: 0.55–0.77) the two methods of measurement differed for arm muscle area and arm fat area. The estimated median of measurements by ultrasound for arm muscle area were significantly lower than those estimated by the anthropometric method, which differed by as much as 111% (P,0.001). The estimated median ultrasound measurement of the arm fat was higher than the anthropometric arm fat area by as much as 31% (P,0.001). Conclusion: Compared with ultrasound measurements using skinfold measurements and mid-arm circumference without further correction may lead to overestimation of the cross-sectional area of muscle and underestimation of the cross-sectional fat area. The correlation between the two methods could be interpreted as an indication for further search of correction factors in the equations.