Literature DB >> 8560661

The Oxford Laser Prostate Trial: sensitivity to change of three measures of outcome.

S R Keoghane1, K C Lawrence, C P Jenkinson, H A Doll, D B Chappel, D W Cranston.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the sensitivity to change of outcome measures in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and contact laser prostatectomy.
METHODS: A total of 152 patients were randomized to TURP or contact laser prostatectomy using the Surgical Laser Technology (SLT) system. Preoperative data were obtained using a self-administered questionnaire containing the American Urological Association (AUA-7) symptom score, the bothersome score (benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index), and the Short Form-36 health status questionnaire (SF-36). Follow-up was at 1 and 3 months. Effect size scores were calculated to indicate the extent of change from baseline to follow-up.
RESULTS: Data were available on 148 patients: 72 received laser therapy and 76 received TURP. Mean change in AUA-7 score at 3 months was 7.3 in the laser arm, compared with 11.9 in the TURP arm (P < 0.05). Furthermore, substantial change was detected in both groups on the bothersome score. However, very few significant differences in SF-36 dimension scores from baseline to 3 months were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 at both baseline and follow-up indicated a similar level of health status as that reported in the general population. Subsequently, the measure did not improve on any dimensions. Our data support the claim of some researchers that shorter disease-specific indices are vital to the evaluation of treatment regimens in clinical trials, especially when the general health of the patients is similar to that of the population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8560661     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80380-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

1.  How important are men's lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and their impact on the quality of life (QOL)?

Authors:  J Haltbakk; B R Hanestad; S Hunskaar
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Use of the Short Form-36 to detect the influence of upper gastrointestinal disease on self-reported health status.

Authors:  J W Mant; C Jenkinson; M F Murphy; K Clipsham; P Marshall; M P Vessey
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: measurement of longitudinal changes.

Authors:  C M Mangione; L Goldman; E J Orav; E R Marcantonio; A Pedan; L E Ludwig; M C Donaldson; D J Sugarbaker; R Poss; T H Lee
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research.

Authors:  Berrie Middel; Eric van Sonderen
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 5.120

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.