Literature DB >> 15762908

A comparison of clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lung disease, asthma, or heart disease.

Kathleen W Wyrwich1, William M Tierney, Ajit N Babu, Kurt Kroenke, Fredric D Wolinsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: On the eight scales of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, we compared the clinically important difference (CID) thresholds for change over time developed by three separate expert panels of physicians with experience in quality of life assessment among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and heart disease. STUDY
DESIGN: We used a modified Delphi technique combined with a face-to-face panel meeting within each disease to organize and conduct the consensus process among the expert panelists, who were familiar with the assessment and evaluations of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures among patients with the panel-specific disease. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Each of the expert panels first determined the magnitude of the smallest numerically possible change on each SF-36 scale, referred to as a state change, and then built their CIDs from this metric. All three panels attained consensus on the scale changes that constituted small, moderate, and large clinically important SF-36 change scores. The CIDs established by the heart disease panel were generally greater than the CIDs agreed on by the asthma and COPD panels.
CONCLUSIONS: These panel-derived thresholds reflect possible differences in disease management among the represented panel-specific diseases, and are all greater than the minimal CID thresholds previously developed for the SF-36 scales among patients with arthritis. If confirmed among patients with the relevant diseases and those patients' physicians, these disease-specific CIDs could assist both researchers and practicing clinicians in the use and interpretation of HRQL changes over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15762908      PMCID: PMC1361158          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00373.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  24 in total

1.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; N A Nienaber; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures.

Authors:  P G Shekelle; J P Kahan; S J Bernstein; L L Leape; C J Kamberg; R E Park
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-06-25       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  M Kosinski; S Z Zhao; S Dedhiya; J T Osterhaus; J E Ware
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2000-07

Review 6.  Generic versus disease-specific health status measures. An example using coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure patients.

Authors:  F D Wolinsky; K W Wyrwich; N A Nienaber; W M Tierney
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.651

Review 7.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 8.  Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; David Cella; Marlene Frost; Gordon H Guyatt; Mirjam Sprangers; Tara Symonds
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 9.  The clinical significance of quality-of-life results: practical considerations for specific audiences.

Authors:  Tara Symonds; Rick Berzon; Patrick Marquis; Teresa A Rummans
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.616

10.  Individual differences in quality-of-life treatment response.

Authors:  Gary W Donaldson; Carol M Moinpour
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  96 in total

1.  Lung function and health status in metropolitan fire-fighters compared to general population controls.

Authors:  Tjard Schermer; Trish Malbon; Michael Morgan; Nancy Briggs; Christine Holton; Sarah Appleton; Robbert Adams; Michael Smith; Alan Crockett
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2010-04-03       Impact factor: 3.015

2.  Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Reduction in physical function in women after venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  K A Hagan; L B Harrington; J Kim; O Zeleznik; E B Rimm; F Grodstein; C Kabrhel
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 5.824

4.  Clinically important changes in short form 36 health survey scales for use in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the impact of low responsiveness.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria I Alba
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.794

5.  Treatment of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea With Positive Airway Pressure: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment.

Authors:  Susheel P Patil; Indu A Ayappa; Sean M Caples; R Joh Kimoff; Sanjay R Patel; Christopher G Harrod
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  An Exploratory Analysis of Potential New Biomarkers of Cognitive Function.

Authors:  Matthew J Peterson; Sheena Geoghegan; Larry W Lawhorne
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 6.053

7.  Triangulating patient and clinician perspectives on clinically important differences in health-related quality of life among patients with heart disease.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; Stacie M Metz; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Ajit N Babu; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Incidence of self-reported brain injury and the relationship with substance abuse: findings from a longitudinal community survey.

Authors:  Robert J Tait; Kaarin J Anstey; Peter Butterworth
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Combining cognitive-behavioral therapy and milnacipran for fibromyalgia: a feasibility randomized-controlled trial.

Authors:  Dennis C Ang; Mark P Jensen; Jennifer L Steiner; Janna Hilligoss; Richard H Gracely; Chandan Saha
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.442

10.  'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Chris Salisbury; Nadine E Foster; Annette Bishop; Michael Calnan; Jo Coast; Jeanette Hall; Elaine Hay; Sandra Hollinghurst; Cherida Hopper; Sean Grove; Surinder Kaur; Alan Montgomery
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.