Literature DB >> 19856128

Same question, different answers: a comparison of global health assessments using visual analogue scales.

Mark J Harrison1, Annelies Boonen, Peter Tugwell, Deborah P M Symmons.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare responses to two global health VAS of patients with rheumatoid arthritis at the same assessment within the same questionnaire.
METHODS: Secondary analysis of randomised controlled trial data. Patients completed the patient global assessment VAS (PG-VAS) (horizontal 10 cm scale, left (0), right (100), no incremental markers) and EQ-5D-VAS (EQ-VAS) (vertical 20 cm scale, 100 at the top, markers at each increment of 10). Both asked "how good or bad is your health today, in your opinion, from 100 'Best imaginable health state' to 0 'Worst imaginable health state'." Agreement was assessed using intra-class correlation co-efficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-eight patients reported median PG-VAS 66 (IQR 51, 77) and EQ-VAS 65 (IQR 50, 80) scores. Correlation of the VAS scales was moderate at baseline (ICC 0.564) and longitudinally (ICC 0.503). Bland-Altman plots suggested poor concordance of the PG-VAS and EQ-VAS; the limits of agreement were +/-32.3 on a 0-100 scale. PG-VAS scores were evenly distributed; EQ-VAS scores clustered at increments of 10; rounding did not improve agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-VAS and PG-VAS scores are not interchangeable at the individual level. The EQ-VAS correlated more strongly with disease-specific and health-related quality of life measures, therefore, appears preferable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19856128     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9546-3

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


  30 in total

1.  Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?

Authors:  G W Torrance; D Feeny; W Furlong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  'Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin. A response: 'yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?'.

Authors:  John Brazier; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?

Authors:  David Parkin; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation.

Authors:  B Schweikert; H Hahmann; R Leidl
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-03-29       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Reproducibility along a 10 cm vertical visual analogue scale.

Authors:  J S Dixon; H A Bird
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  The overall status in rheumatoid arthritis (OSRA) measure--further evidence to support its use in clinical practice.

Authors:  M J Harrison; A Hassell; P T Dawes; D L Scott; S M Knight; M J Davis; D Mulherin; D P M Symmons
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2007-01-30       Impact factor: 7.580

9.  Patients with stable long-standing rheumatoid arthritis continue to deteriorate despite intensified treatment with traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs--results of the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  D Symmons; K Tricker; M Harrison; C Roberts; M Davis; P Dawes; A Hassell; S Knight; D Mulherin; D L Scott
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 7.580

10.  Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective.

Authors:  G A Wells; P Tugwell; G R Kraag; P R Baker; J Groh; D A Redelmeier
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.666

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comorbidity and disease burden in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).

Authors:  Anne M Gadermann; Jordi Alonso; Gemma Vilagut; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 6.505

Review 2.  Patient global assessment in measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Elena Nikiphorou; Helga Radner; Katerina Chatzidionysiou; Carole Desthieux; Codruta Zabalan; Yvonne van Eijk-Hustings; William G Dixon; Kimme L Hyrich; Johan Askling; Laure Gossec
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 5.156

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.