UNLABELLED: Quality of life (QOL) scores can be difficult to interpret, because small statistically significant differences can be clinically unimportant. Our goal was to estimate the magnitude of difference in QOL that is noticeable to patients. METHODS: Laryngeal cancer patients (n = 98, male = 83%, mean age = 65) completed a QOL questionnaire, FACT-H&N. Paired participants rated their own QOL as compared to each other. We estimated the smallest difference in QOL score that was associated with a noticeable difference in patients' subjective ratings. RESULTS: Differences in FACT-H&N score were somewhat correlated with patients' ratings of their well-being relative to other patients (r = 0.195, p < 0.0001). The FACT-H&N score had to differ by 6.22 for patients to rate themselves as 'a little bit better' relative to other patients (95% CI: 1.42-11.02), and by 12.40 for patients to rate themselves as 'a little bit worse' relative to others (95% CI: 5.09-19.71). Results were consistent regardless of patient age, gender or laryngeal subsite but were imperfect predictors of individual judgements. CONCLUSION: The minimal important difference for the FACT-H&N score is about 6-12 units, but laryngeal cancer survivors may be more sensitive to gains than losses.
UNLABELLED: Quality of life (QOL) scores can be difficult to interpret, because small statistically significant differences can be clinically unimportant. Our goal was to estimate the magnitude of difference in QOL that is noticeable to patients. METHODS:Laryngeal cancerpatients (n = 98, male = 83%, mean age = 65) completed a QOL questionnaire, FACT-H&N. Paired participants rated their own QOL as compared to each other. We estimated the smallest difference in QOL score that was associated with a noticeable difference in patients' subjective ratings. RESULTS: Differences in FACT-H&N score were somewhat correlated with patients' ratings of their well-being relative to other patients (r = 0.195, p < 0.0001). The FACT-H&N score had to differ by 6.22 for patients to rate themselves as 'a little bit better' relative to other patients (95% CI: 1.42-11.02), and by 12.40 for patients to rate themselves as 'a little bit worse' relative to others (95% CI: 5.09-19.71). Results were consistent regardless of patient age, gender or laryngeal subsite but were imperfect predictors of individual judgements. CONCLUSION: The minimal important difference for the FACT-H&N score is about 6-12 units, but laryngeal cancer survivors may be more sensitive to gains than losses.
Authors: Gregory T Wolf; Susan Gross Fisher; Waun Ki Hong; Robert Hillman; Monica Spaulding; George E Laramore; James W Endicott; Kenneth McClatchey; William G Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan Yount; Marcy List; Hongyan Du; Kathleen Yost; Rita Bode; Bruce Brockstein; Athanassios Argiris; Everett Vokes; Ezra E W Cohen; Bruce Campbell; Veronica Valenzuela; Jacquelyn George; Robyn Egan; Jessica Chen; David Meddis; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-10-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jane Turner; Patsy Yates; Lizbeth Kenny; Louisa G Gordon; Bryan Burmeister; Brett G M Hughes; Alexandra L McCarthy; Chris Perry; Raymond J Chan; Alana Paviour; Helen Skerman; Martin Batstone; Lisa Mackenzie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Colin Lavigne; Harold Lau; George Francis; S Nicole Culos-Reed; Guillaume Y Millet; Rosie Twomey Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: John T Maringwa; Chantal Quinten; Madeleine King; Jolie Ringash; David Osoba; Corneel Coens; Francesca Martinelli; Jurgen Vercauteren; Charles S Cleeland; Henning Flechtner; Carolyn Gotay; Eva Greimel; Martin J Taphoorn; Bryce B Reeve; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Joachim Weis; Egbert F Smit; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Stanley Bruce Malkowicz; Marsha Wittink; Alan J Wein; Sumedha Chhatre Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Patrick D Maguire; Charles R Neal; Stuart M Hardy; Andrew M Schreiber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 7.038