Jan Tidermark1, Gunnar Bergström. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institute at Stockholm Söder Hospital, S-118 83, Stockholm, Sweden. jan.tidermark@sodersjukhuset.se
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the internal and external responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and to evaluate the overlap of change scores from the two instruments. METHODS: Sixty patients with femoral neck fractures treated with internal fixation at a university hospital participated. Internal responsiveness was assessed using a paired t-test and the standardised response mean (SRM) for patients with displaced fractures hypothesised to deteriorate between baseline and the 6-month follow-up. In the analyses of external responsiveness, receiver operator characteristics (ROC) and logistic regression were employed to assess the correspondence between the chosen external criterion (EC) defining fracture displacement, i.e. displaced vs. undisplaced fractures, and the change scores from the EQ-5D and the NHP. The overlap in change scores for the overall scores and comparable subdimensions of the two instruments was evaluated by correlational analyses. RESULTS: The SRM were large and the change in HRQoL over time was statistically significant for both instruments in patients with displaced fractures. A correspondence was found between the EC and change scores for both questionnaires. The correlation coefficients between the change scores for the overall scores and comparable subdimensions of the two instruments ranged from relatively small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results yielded support for the internal and external responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the NHP and indicated an advantage for the EQ-5D. The empirical overlap between change scores from the two instruments was limited.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the internal and external responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and to evaluate the overlap of change scores from the two instruments. METHODS: Sixty patients with femoral neck fractures treated with internal fixation at a university hospital participated. Internal responsiveness was assessed using a paired t-test and the standardised response mean (SRM) for patients with displaced fractures hypothesised to deteriorate between baseline and the 6-month follow-up. In the analyses of external responsiveness, receiver operator characteristics (ROC) and logistic regression were employed to assess the correspondence between the chosen external criterion (EC) defining fracture displacement, i.e. displaced vs. undisplaced fractures, and the change scores from the EQ-5D and the NHP. The overlap in change scores for the overall scores and comparable subdimensions of the two instruments was evaluated by correlational analyses. RESULTS: The SRM were large and the change in HRQoL over time was statistically significant for both instruments in patients with displaced fractures. A correspondence was found between the EC and change scores for both questionnaires. The correlation coefficients between the change scores for the overall scores and comparable subdimensions of the two instruments ranged from relatively small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results yielded support for the internal and external responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the NHP and indicated an advantage for the EQ-5D. The empirical overlap between change scores from the two instruments was limited.
Authors: Romke Van Balen; Marie Louise Essink-Bot; Ewout Steyerberg; Herman Cools; Dik F Habbema Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2003-05-20 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Richard Blomfeldt; Hans Törnkvist; Sari Ponzer; Anita Söderqvist; Jan Tidermark Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Carl Johan Hedbeck; Jan Tidermark; Sari Ponzer; Richard Blomfeldt; Gunnar Bergström Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: J A Kanis; H Johansson; A Odén; N C Harvey; V Gudnason; K M Sanders; G Sigurdsson; K Siggeirsdottir; L A Fitzpatrick; F Borgström; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: A Svedbom; F Borgstöm; E Hernlund; O Ström; V Alekna; M L Bianchi; P Clark; M D Curiel; H P Dimai; M Jürisson; R Kallikorm; M Lember; O Lesnyak; E McCloskey; K M Sanders; S Silverman; A Solodovnikov; M Tamulaitiene; T Thomas; N Toroptsova; A Uusküla; A N A Tosteson; B Jönsson; J A Kanis Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Anders Enocson; Hans Pettersson; Sari Ponzer; Hans Törnkvist; Nils Dalén; Jan Tidermark Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.147