Literature DB >> 22417225

Comparison of distribution- and anchor-based approaches to infer changes in health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors.

Ravishankar Jayadevappa1, Stanley Bruce Malkowicz, Marsha Wittink, Alan J Wein, Sumedha Chhatre.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal important difference (MID) in generic and prostate-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using distribution- and anchor-based methods. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Prospective cohort study of 602 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients recruited from an urban academic hospital and a Veterans Administration hospital. Participants completed generic (SF-36) and prostate-specific HRQoL surveys at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months posttreatment. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to develop MID estimates. We compared the proportion of participants returning to baseline based on MID estimates from the two methods.
RESULTS: MID estimates derived from combining distribution- and anchor-based methods for the SF-36 subscales are physical function = 7, role physical = 14, role emotional = 12, vitality = 9, mental health = 6, social function = 9, bodily pain = 9, and general health = 8; and for the prostate-specific scales are urinary function = 8, bowel function = 7, sexual function = 8, urinary bother = 9, bowel bother = 8, and sexual bother = 11. Proportions of participants returning to baseline values corresponding to MID estimates from the two methods were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the MID for generic and prostate-specific HRQoL using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Although variation exists in the MID estimates derived from these two methods, the recovery patterns corresponding to these estimates were comparable. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22417225      PMCID: PMC3513611          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01395.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  57 in total

1.  Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation.

Authors:  C van Walraven; J L Mahon; D Moher; C Bohm; A Laupacis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain.

Authors:  Kelvin Jordan; Kate M Dunn; Martyn Lewis; Peter Croft
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-11-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.

Authors:  Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance.

Authors:  Bruce Barrett; David Brown; Marlon Mundt; Roger Brown
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  Quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marcus L Quek; David F Penson
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire.

Authors:  Abhaya V Kulkarni
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

Authors:  David Cella; David T Eton; Diane L Fairclough; Philip Bonomi; Anne E Heyes; Cheryl Silberman; Michael K Wolf; David H Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 8.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Meaningful effect size and patterns of response of the transition dyspnea index.

Authors:  Theodore J Witek; Donald A Mahler
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Berend Terluin; Dirk L Knol; Leo D Roorda; Lidwine B Mokkink; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Erik J M Hendriks; Lex M Bouter; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  21 in total

1.  Quality of life among men with low-risk prostate cancer during the first year following diagnosis: the PREPARE prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; Yingjun Zhou; Amethyst Leimpeter; Jun Shan; Roxanne E Jensen; David S Aaronson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form.

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Rodney L Dunn; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; John T Wei
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Association Between Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Patient-Reported Outcomes After 3 Years.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; JoAnn Alvarez; Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Mark D Tyson; Ralph Conwill; Dan McCollum; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Sherrie H Kaplan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Caution with Use of the EPIC-50 Urinary Bother Scale: How Voiding Dysfunction Modifies its Performance.

Authors:  Lin Yang; Adam S Kibel; Graham A Colditz; Ratna Pakpahan; Kellie R Imm; Sonya Izadi; Robert L Grubb; Kathleen Y Wolin; Siobhan Sutcliffe
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Quality of life along the diabetes continuum: a cross-sectional view of health-related quality of life and general health status in middle-aged and older Finns.

Authors:  Saku Väätäinen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Jouko Saramies; Hannu Uusitalo; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Janne Martikainen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Patient-Reported Outcomes Through 5 Years for Active Surveillance, Surgery, Brachytherapy, or External Beam Radiation With or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Karen E Hoffman; David F Penson; Zhiguo Zhao; Li-Ching Huang; Ralph Conwill; Aaron A Laviana; Daniel D Joyce; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew R Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; Tatsuki Koyama; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Primary cryotherapy for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jae Hung Jung; Michael C Risk; Robert Goldfarb; Balaji Reddy; Bernadette Coles; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-05-30

8.  Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?

Authors:  Jennifer Ai-Lian Woo; Leonard N Chen; Hongkun Wang; Robyn A Cyr; Onita Bhattasali; Joy S Kim; Rudy Moures; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian Timothy Collins; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review.

Authors:  Anne R Cotter; Kim Vuong; Linda Mustelin; Yi Yang; Malika Rakhmankulova; Colleen J Barclay; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

Authors:  Anna Wilkins; Helen Mossop; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; David Bloomfield; Chris Parker; John Logue; Christopher Scrase; Helen Patterson; Alison Birtle; John Staffurth; Zafar Malik; Miguel Panades; Chinnamani Eswar; John Graham; Martin Russell; Peter Kirkbride; Joe M O'Sullivan; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; Clare Griffin; David Dearnaley; Emma Hall
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 41.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.