Literature DB >> 33617087

Minimal clinically important differences in SF-36 global score: Current value in orthopedic oncology.

Koichi Ogura1, Meredith K Bartelstein1, Mohamed A Yakoub1, Zarko Nikolic1, Patrick J Boland1, John H Healey1.   

Abstract

The SF-36 is widely used to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Instead of typical methods, calculating the SF-36 Global Score has recently become an increasingly common reporting approach. However, numerical changes lack clear clinical relevance. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is useful for interpreting changes in functional scores by defining the smallest change patients may perceive as clinically meaningful. The aim of this study is to determine the MCID of the SF-36 Global Score in orthopedic oncology patients, which has not been reported to date. Three-hundred ten patients who underwent surgery and completed two surveys during postoperative follow-up were reviewed. The two most common methods for calculating the SF-36 Global Score were used: (1) anchor-based methods and receiver operating characteristic analysis based on one-half of the SD of change score and standard error of measurement at baseline and; (2) distribution-based methods. Using anchor-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 2.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.85) and 2.5 (AUC = 0.79) for improvement, and -1.5 (AUC = 0.81) and -0.6 (AUC = 0.83) for deterioration, respectively. Using distribution-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 4.1 and 4.4 by half SD, and 4.1 and 4.5 by standard error of measurement, respectively. Our findings provide benchmark values, which can serve as a reference for future studies in musculoskeletal tumor patients using the SF-36 Global Score as a single measure for HRQoL.
© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SF-36 Global Score; anchor-based method; distribution-based method; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); minimal clinically important difference (MCID); sarcoma

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33617087      PMCID: PMC9348556          DOI: 10.1002/jor.24944

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.102


  43 in total

Review 1.  SF-36 health survey update.

Authors:  J E Ware
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey.

Authors:  Fotios Anagnostopoulos; Dimitris Niakas; Evelina Pappa
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients.

Authors:  Helen Campbell; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Katharine Johnston; Alastair Gray; Jeremy Fairbank; Helen Frost
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Reliability and Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Upper Extremity in Japanese Patients.

Authors:  Kosuke Uehara; Koichi Ogura; Toru Akiyama; Yusuke Shinoda; Shintaro Iwata; Eisuke Kobayashi; Yoshikazu Tanzawa; Tsukasa Yonemoto; Hirotaka Kawano; Akira Kawai
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Health related quality of life in patients treated with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: development and validation of a new disease specific questionnaire.

Authors:  Michael S Cookson; Sajal C Dutta; Sam S Chang; Travis Clark; Joseph A Smith; Nancy Wells
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients?

Authors:  Selcen Yuksel; Selim Ayhan; Vugar Nabiyev; Montse Domingo-Sabat; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Ibrahim Obeid; Francisco Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Emre Acaroglu
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 8.  Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Sharan K Rai; Jinoos Yazdany; Paul R Fortin; J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.156

Review 9.  Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.

Authors:  Ahmad Ousmen; Célia Touraine; Nina Deliu; Francesco Cottone; Franck Bonnetain; Fabio Efficace; Anne Brédart; Caroline Mollevi; Amélie Anota
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 10.  SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review.

Authors:  Liliane Lins; Fernando Martins Carvalho
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2016-10-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.