AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare quality-of-life instruments used as outcome measures in randomized clinical trials for alcohol-dependence treatment. METHODS: Randomized controlled clinical trials, indexed in the EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO databases since 1981, which aimed at improving the quality of life in alcohol-dependent patients and used as instrument to measure the quality of life, as specifically designated by the authors, were included. RESULTS: Of the 331 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Eight different quality-of-life instruments were used as outcome measures. Twenty-seven life domains were explored. Between-scale heterogeneity was high. The scale most frequently used was the medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Only 1 clinical trial demonstrated a significant difference between intervention groups at all endpoints, using the quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). CONCLUSION: Because many different instruments were used, it is difficult to compare quality-of-life improvement between trials. The most frequently used instrument was a generic health status measure that may not be well suited as a quality-of-life measure for subjects with alcohol dependence. The construction and validation of a specific patient-reported outcome based on alcohol-dependent patients' concerns would effectively contribute to the assessment of treatment efficacy.
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare quality-of-life instruments used as outcome measures in randomized clinical trials for alcohol-dependence treatment. METHODS: Randomized controlled clinical trials, indexed in the EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO databases since 1981, which aimed at improving the quality of life in alcohol-dependent patients and used as instrument to measure the quality of life, as specifically designated by the authors, were included. RESULTS: Of the 331 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Eight different quality-of-life instruments were used as outcome measures. Twenty-seven life domains were explored. Between-scale heterogeneity was high. The scale most frequently used was the medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Only 1 clinical trial demonstrated a significant difference between intervention groups at all endpoints, using the quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). CONCLUSION: Because many different instruments were used, it is difficult to compare quality-of-life improvement between trials. The most frequently used instrument was a generic health status measure that may not be well suited as a quality-of-life measure for subjects with alcohol dependence. The construction and validation of a specific patient-reported outcome based on alcohol-dependent patients' concerns would effectively contribute to the assessment of treatment efficacy.
Authors: A Luquiens; D Whalley; S R Crawford; P Laramée; L Doward; M Price; N Hawken; J Dorey; L Owens; P M Llorca; B Falissard; H J Aubin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Susan E Collins; Seema L Clifasefi; Lonnie A Nelson; Joey Stanton; Silvi C Goldstein; Emily M Taylor; Gail Hoffmann; Victor L King; Alyssa S Hatsukami; Zohar Lev Cunningham; Ellie Taylor; Nigel Mayberry; Daniel K Malone; T Ron Jackson Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-03-06
Authors: Rocco Luigi Picci; Francesco Oliva; Marco Zuffranieri; Paola Vizzuso; Luca Ostacoli; Alessandro Jaretti Sodano; Pier Maria Furlan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Constanza Daigre; Lara Grau-López; Laia Rodríguez-Cintas; Elena Ros-Cucurull; Marta Sorribes-Puertas; Oriol Esculies; Katia Bones-Rocha; Carlos Roncero Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A Luquiens; D Whalley; P Laramée; B Falissard; N Kostogianni; J Rehm; J Manthey; F Paille; H J Aubin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 4.147