Literature DB >> 15892420

Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes.

Kathleen W Wyrwich1, Monika Bullinger, Neil Aaronson, Ron D Hays, Donald L Patrick, Tara Symonds.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This report extracts important considerations for determining and applying clinically significant differences in quality of life (QOL) measures from six published articles written by 30 international experts, in the field of QOL assessment and evaluation. The original six articles were presented at the Symposium on Clinical Significance of Quality of Life Measures in Cancer Patients at the Mayo Clinic in April 2002 and subsequently were published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Specific examples and formulas are given for anchor-based methods, as well as distribution-based methods that correspond to known or relevant anchors to determine important differences in QOL measures. Important prerequisites for clinical significance associated with instrument selection, responsiveness, and the reporting of QOL trial results are provided. We also discuss estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) relative to clinically significant thresholds. Finally, we provide a rationale for applying group-derived standards to individual assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: While no single method for determining clinical significance is unilaterally endorsed, the investigation and full reporting of multiple methods for establishing clinically significant change levels for a QOL measure, and greater direct involvement of clinicians in clinical significance studies are strongly encouraged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15892420     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  50 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Number needed to treat (NNT): estimation of a measure of clinical benefit.

Authors:  S D Walter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  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

Review 4.  Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: a users' guide for clinicians.

Authors:  Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carol M Moinpour; Timothy J Moynihan; Donald L Patrick; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

Review 6.  Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores.

Authors:  Marlene H Frost; Amy E Bonomi; Carol Estwing Ferrans; Gilbert Y Wong; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 7.  Interpretation of quality of life changes.

Authors:  E Lydick; R S Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

Authors:  David Cella; David T Eton; Diane L Fairclough; Philip Bonomi; Anne E Heyes; Cheryl Silberman; Michael K Wolf; David H Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 9.  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

10.  Assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life (HrQOL) improvements in anaemic cancer patients receiving epoetin alfa.

Authors:  D L Patrick; D D Gagnon; M J Zagari; R Mathijs; J Sweetenham
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  132 in total

1.  The in vivo adherence intervention for at risk adolescents with asthma: report of a randomized pilot trial.

Authors:  Michael Seid; Elizabeth J D'Amico; James W Varni; Jennifer K Munafo; Maria T Britto; Carolyn M Kercsmar; Dennis Drotar; Eileen C King; Lynn Darbie
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2011-12-13

2.  Health-related quality of life as an outcome variable in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Pablo Martinez-Martin; Mónica M Kurtis
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 6.570

3.  Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in women undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Symphorosa Shing Chee Chan; Rachel Yau Kar Cheung; Beatrice Pui Yee Lai; Lai Loi Lee; Kwong Wai Choy; Tony Kwok Hung Chung
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Psychometric performance of a generic walking scale (Walk-12G) in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Stina Bladh; Maria H Nilsson; Gun-Marie Hariz; Albert Westergren; Jeremy Hobart; Peter Hagell
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence Dossier.

Authors:  Dennis A Revicki; Ari Gnanasakthy; Kevin Weinfurt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Can Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Be Used to Predict Meaningful Improvement in Function After TKA?

Authors:  Jonathan L Berliner; Dane J Brodke; Vanessa Chan; Nelson F SooHoo; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.