Literature DB >> 15504633

A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale.

David T Eton1, David Cella, Kathleen J Yost, Susan E Yount, Amy H Peterman, Donna S Neuberg, George W Sledge, William C Wood.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine distribution- and anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for four scores from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B): the breast cancer subscale (BCS), Trial Outcome Index (TOI), FACT-G (the general version), and FACT-B. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We used data from a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic breast cancer (ECOG study 1193; n=739) and a prospective observational study of pain in metastatic breast cancer (n=129). One third and one half of the standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement were used as distribution-based criteria. Clinical indicators used to determine anchor-based differences included ECOG performance status, current pain, and response to treatment.
RESULTS: FACT-B scores were responsive to performance status and pain anchors, but not to treatment response. By combining the results of distribution- and anchor-based methods, MID estimates were obtained: BCS=2-3 points, TOI=5-6 points, FACT-G=5-6 points, and FACT-B=7-8 points.
CONCLUSION: Distribution- and anchor-based estimates of the MID do show convergence. These estimates can be used in combination with other measures of efficacy to determine meaningful benefit and provide a basis for sample size estimation in clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15504633     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012

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


  111 in total

1.  Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

Authors:  C Quinten; C Kenis; L Decoster; P R Debruyne; I De Groof; C Focan; F Cornelis; V Verschaeve; C Bachmann; D Bron; S Luce; G Debugne; H Van den Bulck; J C Goeminne; A Baitar; K Geboers; B Petit; C Langenaeken; R Van Rijswijk; P Specenier; G Jerusalem; J P Praet; K Vandenborre; M Lycke; J Flamaing; K Milisen; J P Lobelle; H Wildiers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  Regina Rendas-Baum; Min Yang; Francoise Cattelin; Gene V Wallenstein; John D Fisk
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-07-10       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Pre-Existing Diabetes in Early Stage Breast Cancer Patients is Associated with Lack of Improvement in Quality of Life 2 Years After Diagnosis.

Authors:  Soghra Jarvandi; Maria Pérez; Mario Schootman; Donna B Jeffe
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2016-12

4.  Exercise and dietary advice intervention for survivors of triple-negative breast cancer: effects on body fat, physical function, quality of life, and adipokine profile.

Authors:  Anne K Swisher; Jame Abraham; Daniel Bonner; Diana Gilleland; Gerald Hobbs; Sobha Kurian; Mary Anne Yanosik; Linda Vona-Davis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  David Cella; Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; Joseph C Cappelleri; Krishnan Ramaswamy; Subramanian Hariharan; Bhakti Arondekar; Andrew G Bushmakin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy.

Authors:  Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Jin-Shei Lai; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BN20 in patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  Erin Wong; Liying Zhang; Marc Kerba; Palmira Foro Arnalot; Brita Danielson; May Tsao; Gillian Bedard; Nemica Thavarajah; Paul Cheon; Cyril Danjoux; Natalie Pulenzas; Edward Chow
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Financial Hardship and Quality of Life among African American and White Cancer Survivors: The Role of Limiting Care Due to Cost.

Authors:  Theresa A Hastert; Jaclyn M Kyko; Amanda R Reed; Felicity W K Harper; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Tara E Baird; Ann G Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression.

Authors:  Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Karon Cook; David Cella; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Ron D Hays; Jeanne A Teresi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Municipality-based pragmatic rehabilitation stratified in accordance with individual needs-results from a longitudinal survey study.

Authors:  Sine Rossen; Karen Trier; Berit Christensen; Martina A Eriksen; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Jette Vibe-Petersen
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.