Literature DB >> 9120522

A comparison of different indices of responsiveness.

J G Wright1, N L Young.   

Abstract

The first purpose of this study was to determine if different indices of responsiveness provided similar rank orderings of scales in terms of responsiveness. The second purpose was to compare the responsiveness of patient-specific, disease-specific, and generic health status measures for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. All patients of one surgeon at a single institution were eligible for the study. Patients who did not speak English or did not return for post-operative evaluations were excluded. Patients completed two disease-specific scales (the Harris Hip Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis scale or WOMAC), one generic health status scale (the SF-36), and two patient-specific scales (the McMaster-Toronto Arthritis questionnaire or MACTAR and the Patient Specific Index or PASI). All scales were administered on two occasions: before and 6 months after total hip arthroplasty. Responsiveness was measured using: (1) the responsiveness statistic; (2) standardized response mean; (3) relative efficiency statistic; (4) effect size; and also by (5) correlating each scale's change score with the change in patients' global ratings of their "hip function." Seventy-eight sequential patients completed the study. The mean age was 62 years (range 25-87), 55% were male, and 71% had osteoarthritis. Test-retest reliability of the scales ranged from 0.31 to 0.93. The correlation among scales was consistent with a priori hypotheses confirming construct validity of the scales. Although the disease-specific scales were generally rated as the most responsive scales, the different indices provided different rank orderings by up to 5 levels (p = 0.04). In conclusion, disease-specific scales are the most responsive scales. However, choosing among scales based on responsiveness must be done with caution because different indices of responsiveness provide different rank ordering.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9120522     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  108 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparison of measures to assess change in diagnostic performance due to a decision support system.

Authors:  R S Maisiak; E S Berner
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

3.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Outcome measures and medical progress: why outcome measures are needed in childhood arthritis.

Authors:  Francesco Zulian
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score--a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear.

Authors:  T D Böhm; S Kirschner; M Köhler; N Wollmerstedt; M Walther; M Matzer; H Faller; A König
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.631

6.  A comparison of the responsiveness of different generic health status measures in patients with asthma.

Authors:  Toru Oga; Koichi Nishimura; Mitsuhiro Tsukino; Susumu Sato; Takashi Hajiro; Michiaki Mishima
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  The stability of utility scores: test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D Feeny; C M Blanchard; J L Mahon; R Bourne; C Rorabeck; L Stitt; S Webster-Bogaert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Inpatient rehabilitation for hip or knee osteoarthritis: 2 year follow up study.

Authors:  M Weigl; F Angst; G Stucki; S Lehmann; A Aeschlimann
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 19.103

9.  Patient-level clinically meaningful improvements in activities of daily living and pain after total hip arthroplasty: data from a large US institutional registry.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; David G Lewallen
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 7.580

10.  Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study.

Authors:  A-K Nilsdotter; I F Petersson; E M Roos; L S Lohmander
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 19.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.