BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Short Form 12 (SF-12) has not been validated for long-term dialysis patients. The study compared physical and mental component summary (PCS/MCS) scores from the SF-36 with those from the embedded SF-12 in a national cohort of dialysis patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: All 44,395 patients who had scorable SF-36 and SF-12 from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006, and were treated at Fresenius Medical Care, North America facilities were included. Death and first hospitalization were followed for up to 1 year from the date of survey. Correlation and agreement were obtained between PCS-36 and PCS-12 and MCS-36 and MCS-12; then Cox models were constructed to compare associated hazard ratios (HRs) between them. RESULTS: Physical and mental dimensions both exhibited excellent intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94. Each incremental point for both PCS-12 and PCS-36 was associated with a 2.4% lower adjusted HR of death and 0.4% decline in HR for first hospitalization (both P < 0.0001). Corresponding improvement in HR of death for each MCS point was 1.2% for MCS-12 and 1.3% for MCS-36, whereas both had similar 0.6% lower HR for hospitalization per point (all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the SF-12 alone or as part of a larger survey is valid in dialysis patients. Composite scores from the SF-12 and SF-36 have similar prognostic association with death and hospitalization risk. Prospective longitudinal studies of SF-12 surveys that consider responsiveness to specific clinical, situational, and interventional changes are needed in this population.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Short Form 12 (SF-12) has not been validated for long-term dialysis patients. The study compared physical and mental component summary (PCS/MCS) scores from the SF-36 with those from the embedded SF-12 in a national cohort of dialysis patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: All 44,395 patients who had scorable SF-36 and SF-12 from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006, and were treated at Fresenius Medical Care, North America facilities were included. Death and first hospitalization were followed for up to 1 year from the date of survey. Correlation and agreement were obtained between PCS-36 and PCS-12 and MCS-36 and MCS-12; then Cox models were constructed to compare associated hazard ratios (HRs) between them. RESULTS: Physical and mental dimensions both exhibited excellent intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94. Each incremental point for both PCS-12 and PCS-36 was associated with a 2.4% lower adjusted HR of death and 0.4% decline in HR for first hospitalization (both P < 0.0001). Corresponding improvement in HR of death for each MCS point was 1.2% for MCS-12 and 1.3% for MCS-36, whereas both had similar 0.6% lower HR for hospitalization per point (all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the SF-12 alone or as part of a larger survey is valid in dialysis patients. Composite scores from the SF-12 and SF-36 have similar prognostic association with death and hospitalization risk. Prospective longitudinal studies of SF-12 surveys that consider responsiveness to specific clinical, situational, and interventional changes are needed in this population.
Authors: Albert W Wu; Nancy E Fink; Jane V R Marsh-Manzi; Klemens B Meyer; Frederic O Finkelstein; Michelle M Chapman; Neil R Powe Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Donna L Mapes; Antonio Alberto Lopes; Sudtida Satayathum; Keith P McCullough; David A Goodkin; Francesco Locatelli; Shunichi Fukuhara; Eric W Young; Kiyoshi Kurokawa; Akira Saito; Jürgen Bommer; Robert A Wolfe; Philip J Held; Friedrich K Port Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Glenn M Chertow; Nathan W Levin; Gerald J Beck; Thomas A Depner; Paul W Eggers; Jennifer J Gassman; Irina Gorodetskaya; Tom Greene; Sam James; Brett Larive; Robert M Lindsay; Ravindra L Mehta; Brent Miller; Daniel B Ornt; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Anjay Rastogi; Michael V Rocco; Brigitte Schiller; Olga Sergeyeva; Gerald Schulman; George O Ting; Mark L Unruh; Robert A Star; Alan S Kliger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; H Thomas Stelfox; Robert C McDermid; Darryl B Rolfson; Ross T Tsuyuki; Nadia Baig; Barbara Artiuch; Quazi Ibrahim; Daniel E Stollery; Ella Rokosh; Sumit R Majumdar Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Yoshio N Hall; Brett Larive; Patricia Painter; George A Kaysen; Robert M Lindsay; Allen R Nissenson; Mark L Unruh; Michael V Rocco; Glenn M Chertow Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jeffrey Perl; Angelo Karaboyas; Hal Morgenstern; Ananda Sen; Hugh C Rayner; Raymond C Vanholder; Christian Combe; Takeshi Hasegawa; Fredric O Finkelstein; Antonio A Lopes; Bruce M Robinson; Ronald L Pisoni; Francesca Tentori Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Anusha M Vable; Catherine dP Duarte; Alison K Cohen; M Maria Glymour; Robert K Ream; Irene H Yen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Linda Y Belayev; Maria K Mor; Mary Ann Sevick; Anne Marie Shields; Bruce L Rollman; Paul M Palevsky; Robert M Arnold; Michael J Fine; Steven D Weisbord Journal: Hemodial Int Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Lucas H P Bernts; Myrte K Neijenhuis; Marie E Edwards; Jeff A Sloan; Jenna Fischer; Rory L Smoot; David M Nagorney; Joost P H Drenth; Marie C Hogan Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 3.982