M M Lokhorst1, S E R Horbach1, M Waner2, T M O2, C J M van der Vleuten3, P I Spuls4, C M A M van der Horst1. 1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Vascular Birthmark Institute of New York, Department of Otolaryngology, Lenox Hill and Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospitals, New York, New York, U.S.A. 3. Department of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The OVAMA (Outcome Measures for VAscular MAlformations) project determined quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain for evaluating treatment effect in vascular malformations. To correctly evaluate treatment effect on QoL, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed that are responsive to changes. In children with vascular malformations, we explored if two widely used PROMs were responsive to changes: the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI). METHODS: In an international multicenter prospective study, conservatively and invasively treated children completed the PedsQL and CDLQI at baseline and after follow-up of 6-8 weeks. At follow-up, change in health was assessed by a global rating of change (GRC) scale. Responsiveness was assessed by testing hypotheses on expected correlation strength between change scores of the PROMs and the GRC scale, and by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The PROMs were considered responsive if ≥75% of the hypotheses were confirmed or if the AUC was ≥0.7. RESULTS: Twenty-nine children were recruited in three centers in the Netherlands and United States, of which 25 completed all baseline and follow-up measurements. For both the PedsQL and CDLQI, less than 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed and the AUC was <0.7. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that these PROMs are not sufficiently responsive for evaluating treatment effect in peripheral vascular malformations. Our study emphasizes the need for assessing responsiveness before using a PROM in evaluating treatment effect.
BACKGROUND: The OVAMA (Outcome Measures for VAscular MAlformations) project determined quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain for evaluating treatment effect in vascular malformations. To correctly evaluate treatment effect on QoL, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed that are responsive to changes. In children with vascular malformations, we explored if two widely used PROMs were responsive to changes: the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI). METHODS: In an international multicenter prospective study, conservatively and invasively treated children completed the PedsQL and CDLQI at baseline and after follow-up of 6-8 weeks. At follow-up, change in health was assessed by a global rating of change (GRC) scale. Responsiveness was assessed by testing hypotheses on expected correlation strength between change scores of the PROMs and the GRC scale, and by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The PROMs were considered responsive if ≥75% of the hypotheses were confirmed or if the AUC was ≥0.7. RESULTS: Twenty-nine children were recruited in three centers in the Netherlands and United States, of which 25 completed all baseline and follow-up measurements. For both the PedsQL and CDLQI, less than 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed and the AUC was <0.7. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that these PROMs are not sufficiently responsive for evaluating treatment effect in peripheral vascular malformations. Our study emphasizes the need for assessing responsiveness before using a PROM in evaluating treatment effect.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Maarten Boers; John R Kirwan; George Wells; Dorcas Beaton; Laure Gossec; Maria-Antonietta d'Agostino; Philip G Conaghan; Clifton O Bingham; Peter Brooks; Robert Landewé; Lyn March; Lee S Simon; Jasvinder A Singh; Vibeke Strand; Peter Tugwell Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S E R Horbach; C M A M van der Horst; F Blei; C J M van der Vleuten; I J Frieden; G T Richter; S T Tan; T Muir; A J Penington; L M Boon; P I Spuls Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Jochen Schmitt; Christian Apfelbacher; Phyllis I Spuls; Kim S Thomas; Eric L Simpson; Masutaka Furue; Joanne Chalmers; Hywel C Williams Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Andrea Diociaiuti; Roberta Rotunno; Elisa Pisaneschi; Claudia Cesario; Claudia Carnevale; Angelo Giuseppe Condorelli; Massimo Rollo; Stefano Di Cecca; Concetta Quintarelli; Antonio Novelli; Giovanna Zambruno; May El Hachem Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-06-20