Literature DB >> 22528240

Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures.

K W Wyrwich1, J M Norquist, W R Lenderking, S Acaster.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Interpretation guidelines are needed for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures' change scores to evaluate efficacy of an intervention and to communicate PRO results to regulators, patients, physicians, and providers. The 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (hereafter referred to as the final FDA PRO Guidance) provides some recommendations for the interpretation of change in PRO scores as evidence of treatment efficacy.
METHODS: This article reviews the evolution of the methods and the terminology used to describe and aid in the communication of meaningful PRO change score thresholds.
RESULTS: Anchor- and distribution-based methods have played important roles, and the FDA has recently stressed the importance of cross-sectional patient global assessments of concept as anchor-based methods for estimation of the responder definition, which describes an individual-level treatment benefit. The final FDA PRO Guidance proposes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of responses as a useful method to depict the effect of treatments across the study population.
CONCLUSIONS: While CDFs serve an important role, they should not be a replacement for the careful investigation of a PRO's relevant responder definition using anchor-based methods and providing stakeholders with a relevant threshold for the interpretation of change over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22528240     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x

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


  46 in total

1.  Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: a users' guide for clinicians.

Authors:  Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carol M Moinpour; Timothy J Moynihan; Donald L Patrick; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 3.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Evaluating measurement responsiveness.

Authors:  M H Liang
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.666

5.  Long-term outcome after respiratory rehabilitation.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; L B Berman; M Townsend
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1987-12-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness.

Authors:  M Hamilton
Journal:  Br J Soc Clin Psychol       Date:  1967-12

Review 7.  Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores.

Authors:  Marlene H Frost; Amy E Bonomi; Carol Estwing Ferrans; Gilbert Y Wong; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 8.  Interpretation of quality of life changes.

Authors:  E Lydick; R S Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  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

10.  Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in heart failure.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; S Nogradi; S Halcrow; J Singer; M J Sullivan; E L Fallen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  63 in total

Review 1.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  David A T Werner; Margreth Grotle; Sasha Gulati; Ivar M Austevoll; Greger Lønne; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Authors:  Jos Hendrikx; Jaap Fransen; Wietske Kievit; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  PedsQL 3.2 Diabetes Module for Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: Reliability and Validity in Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  James W Varni; Alan M Delamater; Korey K Hood; Jennifer K Raymond; Nancy T Chang; Kimberly A Driscoll; Jenise C Wong; Joyce P Yi-Frazier; Ellen K Grishman; Melissa A Faith; Sarah D Corathers; Jessica C Kichler; Jennifer L Miller; Elena M Doskey; Robert W Heffer; Don P Wilson
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores.

Authors:  Cheryl D Coon; Karon F Cook
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Y C Learmonth; E A Hubbard; E McAuley; R W Motl
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Can Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Be Used to Predict Meaningful Improvement in Function After TKA?

Authors:  Jonathan L Berliner; Dane J Brodke; Vanessa Chan; Nelson F SooHoo; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 10.  Instruments for holistic assessment of Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Pablo Martinez-Martin
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2013-03-10       Impact factor: 3.575

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.