Volume 72, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645


The reliability and validity of the earlier developed Buruli ulcer functional limitation score (BUFLS) questionnaire was assessed. Of 638 former Buruli ulcer patients (of 678 individuals examined), sufficient items on daily activities (≥ 13 of the 19) were applicable to calculate a score. To determine the validity, the functional limitation scores of the 638 individuals were compared with the global impression of the limitations, range of motion (ROM), and the social impact (change of occupation or education) of Buruli ulcer. To determine inter-observer reliability, the functional limitation score was reassessed in 107 participants within one and three weeks after the first interview by another interviewer and interpreter. Both global impression and ROM correlated well with the functional limitation scores (ρ = 0.66 and ρ = 0.61). The inter-observer reliability of 107 participants as measured by an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.86 was very good. The functional limitation scores measured in the second assessment were significantly higher than in the first assessment. This should be taken into account when the functional limitation score is used for the individual patient. The BUFLS can be used as for between group comparisons of endpoints in clinical trials and in the planning of resources.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Asiedu K, Raviglione M, Scherpbier R, 1998. International Conference on Buruli Ulcer Control and Research. Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire, July 6–8, 1998. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  2. Stienstra Y, van der Graaf WTA, te Meerman GJ, The TH, de Leij LF, van der Werf TS, 2001. Susceptibility to development of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease: review of possible risk factors. Trop Med Int Health 6 : 554–562. [Google Scholar]
  3. van der Werf TS, van der Graaf WTA, Tappero JW, Asiedu K, 1999. Mycobacterium ulcerans infection. Lancet 354 : 1013–1018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asiedu K, Scherpbier RW, Raviglione M, 2000. Buruli Ulcer—Mycobacterium ulcerans Infection. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  5. Teelken MA, Stienstra Y, Ellen DE, Quarshie E, Klutse E, van der Graaf WTA, van der Werf TS, 2003. Buruli ulcer: differences in treatment outcome between two centres in Ghana. Acta Trop 88 : 51–56. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ellen DE, Stienstra Y, Teelken MA, Dijkstra PU, van der Graaf WTA, van der Werf TS, 2003. Assessment of functional limitations caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection: towards a Buruli ulcer functional limitation score. Trop Med Int Health 8 : 90–96. [Google Scholar]
  7. Stienstra Y, Dijkstra PU, Guedenon A, Johnson RC, Ampadu EO, Mensah T, Klutse EY, Etuaful S, Deepak S, van der Graaf WTA, van der Werf TS, 2004. Development of a questionnaire assessing Buruli ulcer-induced functional limitation. Am J Trop Med Hyg 70 : 318–322. [Google Scholar]
  8. Streiner DL, Norman GR, 1989. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Gerhardt JJ, Rondinelli RD, 2001. Goniometric techniques for range-of-motion assessment. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 12 : 507–527. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bland JM, Altman DG, 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8 : 135–160. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bland JM, Altman DG, 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 : 307–310. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra P, Goeken L, Groothoff J, Geertzen J, 2004. Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 26 : 162–165. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jensen MP, 2003. Questionnaire validation: a brief guide for readers of the research literature. Clin J Pain 19 : 345–352. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, Kostanjsek N, Schneider M, 2003. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil 25 : 565–571. [Google Scholar]
  15. van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Worpel FC, Saiju R, Bk HB, Sherpa S, Sunwar SK, Gurung J, de Boer M, Scholten E, 1999. A scale to assess activities of daily living in persons affected by leprosy. Lepr Rev 70 : 314–323. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brandsma JW, van Brakel WH, 2003. WHO disability grading: operational definitions. Lepr Rev 74 : 366–373. [Google Scholar]
  17. Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R, 1992. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 45 : 1341–1345. [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 01 Jun 2004
  • Accepted : 12 Aug 2004

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error