INTRODUCTION: To compare responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences (MCID) between the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life (GIQLI) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36), we prospectively analyze 159 patients undergoing cholecystectomy at two tertiary academic hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients completed the disease-specific GIQLI and the generic SF-36 before and 3 months after surgery. Scores using these instruments were interpreted by generalized estimating equation before and after cholecystectomy. The bootstrap estimation was used to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness estimates. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Mean changes in all GIQLI and the SF-36 subscales were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparisons of effect size (ES), standardized response means (SRM), and relative efficiency (>1) indicated that the responsiveness of the GIQLI was superior to that of the SF-36. In the equivalence test, all lower or upper confidence limits presented no equivalence (>5), indicating good MCID. The ES and SRM for emotions and physical function in the GIQLI significantly differed from those of the SF-36 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The data in this study indicate that clinicians and health researchers should weight disease-specific measures more heavily than generic measures when evaluating treatment outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: To compare responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences (MCID) between the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life (GIQLI) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36), we prospectively analyze 159 patients undergoing cholecystectomy at two tertiary academic hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients completed the disease-specific GIQLI and the generic SF-36 before and 3 months after surgery. Scores using these instruments were interpreted by generalized estimating equation before and after cholecystectomy. The bootstrap estimation was used to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness estimates. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Mean changes in all GIQLI and the SF-36 subscales were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparisons of effect size (ES), standardized response means (SRM), and relative efficiency (>1) indicated that the responsiveness of the GIQLI was superior to that of the SF-36. In the equivalence test, all lower or upper confidence limits presented no equivalence (>5), indicating good MCID. The ES and SRM for emotions and physical function in the GIQLI significantly differed from those of the SF-36 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The data in this study indicate that clinicians and health researchers should weight disease-specific measures more heavily than generic measures when evaluating treatment outcomes.
Authors: J M Quintana; J Cabriada; I López de Tejada; M Varona; V Oribe; B Barrios; L Perdigo; A Bilbao Journal: Rev Esp Enferm Dig Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 2.086
Authors: José Ma Quintana; Jose Cabriada; Inmaculada Aróstegui; Victor Oribe; Luis Perdigo; Mercedes Varona; Amaia Bilbao Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Brian W McCrindle; Victor Zak; Victoria L Pemberton; Linda M Lambert; Victoria L Vetter; Wyman W Lai; Karen Uzark; Renee Margossian; Andrew M Atz; Amanda Cook; Jane W Newburger Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Vanessa L Kronzer; Michelle R Jerry; Arbi Ben Abdallah; Troy S Wildes; Sherry L McKinnon; Anshuman Sharma; Michael S Avidan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kimberly M Brown; B Todd Moore; G Brent Sorensen; Conrad H Boettger; Fengming Tang; Phil G Jones; Daniel J Margolin Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mark P Lamberts; Wietske Kievit; Jos J G M Gerritsen; Jan A Roukema; Gert P Westert; Joost P H Drenth; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.452