OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity and estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Subjects We used data from two clinical studies to analyze the SF-6D in patients with SSc: Study 1 was a cross-sectional observational study (N = 107) designed to assess three direct preference measures--the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble (SG) in patients with diffuse SSc and limited SSc, and Study 2 was a 12-month randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (N = 168) assessing oral bovine collagen versus placebo in diffuse SSc. METHODS: We assessed the test-retest reliability of the SF-6D in Study 2 over a mean (SD) 4.8 (3.0)-week interval and the agreement between the SF-6D and direct preference measures in Study 1 using intraclass correlations (ICC). The MID was estimated using three different anchors--the SF-36 change in health item (patients who answered "somewhat better" formed the MID group), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; change of > or =0.14 and > or =0.22) and the skin score (change of > or =5.3). Results The mean (SD) SF-6D scores were 0.61 (0.12) in Study 1 and 0.64 (0.13) in Study 2. Test-retest reliability for the SF-6D was high (ICC = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]). Agreement between the SF-6D and three direct preferences measures was poor to moderate (0.16-0.52). The MID estimate for the SF-6D using the change in SF-36 item -0.012 and this level of change was similar to the no change group. The mean MID estimate for the SF-6D improvement using the HAQ-DI and skin score as anchors was 0.035 (effect size of 0.27). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess the SF-6D in SSc. The SF-6D is reliable and valid in patients with SSc. We provide MID estimates that can aid in calculating sample size for clinical trials involving patients with diffuse SSc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity and estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Subjects We used data from two clinical studies to analyze the SF-6D in patients with SSc: Study 1 was a cross-sectional observational study (N = 107) designed to assess three direct preference measures--the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble (SG) in patients with diffuse SSc and limited SSc, and Study 2 was a 12-month randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (N = 168) assessing oral bovine collagen versus placebo in diffuse SSc. METHODS: We assessed the test-retest reliability of the SF-6D in Study 2 over a mean (SD) 4.8 (3.0)-week interval and the agreement between the SF-6D and direct preference measures in Study 1 using intraclass correlations (ICC). The MID was estimated using three different anchors--the SF-36 change in health item (patients who answered "somewhat better" formed the MID group), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; change of > or =0.14 and > or =0.22) and the skin score (change of > or =5.3). Results The mean (SD) SF-6D scores were 0.61 (0.12) in Study 1 and 0.64 (0.13) in Study 2. Test-retest reliability for the SF-6D was high (ICC = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]). Agreement between the SF-6D and three direct preferences measures was poor to moderate (0.16-0.52). The MID estimate for the SF-6D using the change in SF-36 item -0.012 and this level of change was similar to the no change group. The mean MID estimate for the SF-6D improvement using the HAQ-DI and skin score as anchors was 0.035 (effect size of 0.27). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess the SF-6D in SSc. The SF-6D is reliable and valid in patients with SSc. We provide MID estimates that can aid in calculating sample size for clinical trials involving patients with diffuse SSc.
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Mansoor Ahmed; Daniel E Furst; Shaari S Ginsburg; Grace S Park; Richard Hornung; Joel Tsevat Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-02-15
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Xiaohong Yan; Donald P Tashkin; Daniel E Furst; Robert Elashoff; Michael D Roth; Richard Silver; Charlie Strange; Marcy Bolster; James R Seibold; David J Riley; Vivien M Hsu; John Varga; Dean E Schraufnagel; Arthur Theodore; Robert Simms; Robert Wise; Fredrick Wigley; Barbara White; Virginia Steen; Charles Read; Maureen Mayes; Ed Parsley; Kamal Mubarak; M Kari Connolly; Jeffrey Golden; Mitchell Olman; Barri Fessler; Naomi Rothfield; Mark Metersky; Philip J Clements Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-05
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
Authors: D Khanna; D J Lovell; E Giannini; P J Clements; P A Merkel; J R Seibold; M Matucci-Cerinic; C P Denton; M D Mayes; V D Steen; J Varga; D E Furst Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Paul Maranian; James R Seibold; Ann Impens; Maureen D Mayes; Philip J Clements; Terri Getzug; Ron D Hays Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Dennis W Raisch; Heather M Campbell; David A Garnand; Mark A Jones; Mike R Sather; Rupali Naik; Walter Ling Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: T A Kanters; W K Redekop; M E Kruijshaar; A T van der Ploeg; M P M H Rutten-van Mölken; L Hakkaart Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Chi-Hong Tseng; Daniel E Furst; Philip J Clements; Robert Elashoff; Michael Roth; David Elashoff; Donald P Tashkin Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Sogol Amjadi; Paul Maranian; Daniel E Furst; Philip J Clements; Weng Kee Wong; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Puja P Khanna; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-08