Literature DB >> 12393078

A critical look at transition ratings.

Gordon H Guyatt1, Geoffrey R Norman, Elizabeth F Juniper, Lauren E Griffith.   

Abstract

Patient ratings of the extent to which they have improved or deteriorated-transition ratings-are extremely common in clinical practice and clinical research. However, some have raised concerns about transition rating validity. We examined data from three studies, each of which explored the relation between a disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) instrument and transition ratings corresponding to instrument domains. For instance, we looked at the relation between differences in score on the dyspnea domain of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire at Times 1 (pre score) and 2 (post score), and the patients' global rating of change in dyspnea at time 2. We restricted ourselves to comparisons in which the correlation between the HRQL instrument domain and the corresponding global rating of change was at least 0.5. A perfectly valid transition rating would show correlations with the pre and post scores of equal magnitude and opposite sign, and regression coefficients of similar magnitude. Of 14 comparisons, correlations between pre and post scores and transition ratings were similar in three instances, and regression coefficients similar in eight. After considering the post score in a regression in which the transition score was the dependent variable, the pre score explained a statistically significant portion of the variance at the 0.01 level in all but four instances. Although transition scores seldom show the ideal pattern of association with pre and post scores, pre scores usually show appreciable correlation and highly significant regression coefficients with transition scores. Investigators using transition scores should ensure their validity by exploring relationships with pre and post scores of corresponding domain scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12393078     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00435-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  91 in total

Review 1.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  The relationship between symptomatic changes and perceived improvement among patients treated in Brazilian community mental health services.

Authors:  Mário César Rezende Andrade; Marina Bandeira; Michel Perreault; Antonio Paulo Angélico; Marcos Santos de Oliveira
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  2012-09

3.  Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis.

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Weng Kee Wong; Joel Tsevat; Philip J Clements; Grace S Park; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Mansoor Ahmed; Shaari Ginsburg; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Measuring clinically meaningful change following mental health treatment.

Authors:  Susan V Eisen; Gayatri Ranganathan; Pradipta Seal; Avron Spiro
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 1.505

5.  Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures.

Authors:  Michael B Nichol; Joshua D Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Do clinical marker states improve responsiveness and construct validity of the standard gamble and feeling thermometer: a randomized multi-center trial in patients with chronic respiratory disease.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Roger Goldstein; M Jeffery Mador; Douglas McKim; Elisabeth Stahl; Lauren E Griffith; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Peggy Austin; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Domain-specific transition questions demonstrated higher validity than global transition questions as anchors for clinically important improvement.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes data in structured diabetes education intervention: 2-year follow-up data of patient empowerment programme.

Authors:  Carlos K H Wong; Cindy L K Lam; Eric Y F Wan; Anca K C Chan; C H Pak; Frank W K Chan; William C W Wong
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.633

9.  Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system.

Authors:  John M Salsman; David Victorson; Seung W Choi; Amy H Peterman; Allen W Heinemann; Cindy Nowinski; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Establishing mild, moderate, and severe scores for cancer-related symptoms: how consistent and clinically meaningful are interference-based severity cut-points?

Authors:  Barbara Given; Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Sangchoon Jeon; Ruth McCorkle; Victoria Champion; David Decker
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2007-12-26       Impact factor: 3.612

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.