Literature DB >> 16047508

Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients?

Carlo A Marra1, Amir A Rashidi, Daphne Guh, Jacek A Kopec, Michal Abrahamowicz, John M Esdaile, John E Brazier, Paul R Fortin, Aslam H Anis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preference-based, generic measures are increasingly being used to measure quality of life and as sources for quality weights in the estimation of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, among the most commonly used instruments (the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 [HUI2 and HUI3], the EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and the Short Form-6D [SF-6D], there has been little comparative research. Therefore, we examined the reliability and responsiveness of these measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in a sample of RA patients. MAJOR
FINDINGS: Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all of the instruments with the exception of the EQ-5D. Using two external criteria to define change (a patient transition question and categories of the patient global assessment of disease activity VAS), the RAQoL was the most responsive of the instruments. For the indirect utility instruments, the HUI3 and the SF-6D were the most responsive for measuring positive change. On average, for patients whose RA improved, the absolute change was highest for the HUI3.
CONCLUSIONS: The HUI3 and the SF-6D appear to be the most responsive of the preference-based instruments in RA. However, differences in the magnitude of the absolute change scores have important implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16047508     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-6012-0

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


  27 in total

1.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group.

Authors:  P E Lipsky; D M van der Heijde; E W St Clair; D E Furst; F C Breedveld; J R Kalden; J S Smolen; M Weisman; P Emery; M Feldmann; G R Harriman; R N Maini
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Kevin D Willison
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

6.  Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey.

Authors:  P Grootendorst; D Feeny; W Furlong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Patient self-report tender and swollen joint counts in early rheumatoid arthritis. Western Consortium of Practicing Rheumatologists.

Authors:  A L Wong; W K Wong; J Harker; M Sterz; K Bulpitt; G Park; B Ramos; P Clements; H Paulus
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  A randomised controlled trial of occupational therapy for people with early rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  A Hammond; A Young; R Kidao
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 9.  Quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis : which drugs might make a difference?

Authors:  Barbara Blumenauer; Ann Cranney; Jennifer Clinch; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.

Authors:  Stephen J Walters; John E Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  21 in total

1.  Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients.

Authors:  David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?

Authors:  Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  The burden of disease in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Till Uhlig; Rikke H Moe; Tore K Kvien
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The internal and external responsiveness of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12 v2) in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Edmond P H Choi; Carlos K H Wong; Eric Y F Wan; James H L Tsu; W Y Chin; Kenny Kung; M K Yiu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Randomized controlled trial protocol feasibility: The Wheelchair Self-Efficacy Enhanced for Use (WheelSeeU).

Authors:  Krista L Best; William C Miller; Janice J Eng; François Routhier; Charles Goldsmith
Journal:  Can J Occup Ther       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.614

6.  Evaluation of the internal and external responsiveness of Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Eric Yuk Fai Wan; Edmond Pui Hang Choi; Esther Yee Tak Yu; Weng Yee Chin; Colman Siu Cheung Fung; Anca Ka Chun Chan; Cindy Lo Kuen Lam
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  The psychometric testing of the Thai version of the Health Utilities Index in patients with ischemic heart disease.

Authors:  Weena Saiguay; Phantipa Sakthong
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Authors:  M J Harrison; L M Davies; N J Bansback; M J McCoy; S M M Verstappen; K Watson; D P M Symmons
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders.

Authors:  Joern Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain.

Authors:  Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Michael Doherty; Claire Jenkinson; Kenneth R Muir
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2009-07-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.