Responsiveness of health status measures and utility-based methods in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Clinical Rheumatology

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 478-487

  Salaffi, F ^a   Stancati, A ^a   Carotti, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

Author keywords

AIMS2; Health status measurement; Quality of life; Rheumatoid arthritis; SF 36; Utility measurement

Indexed keywords

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; CYCLOSPORIN A; HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE; METHOTREXATE; METHYLPREDNISOLONE; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; SALAZOSULFAPYRIDINE;

ADULT; AGED; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ITALY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; RHEUMATOLOGY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIAL INTERACTION; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0036870589     PISSN: 07703198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s100670200119     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Carr AJ. A patient-centred approach to evaluation and treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the development of a clinical tool to measure patient-perceived handicap. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35:921-32.
2. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-42.
3. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622-9.
4. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res 1984;19:277-89.
5. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:S142-58.
6. Guyatt GH. A taxonomy of health status instruments. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1188-90.
7. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996;28:835-40.
8. Patrick DL. Deyo RA. Generic and disease specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27:S217-32.
9. Meenan RF, Gertman MP, Mason JH. Measuring health status in arthritis. The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:146-52.
10. Ortiz Z, Shea B, Garcia Dieguez M et al. The responsiveness of generic quality of life instruments in rheumatic diseases. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 1999;26:10-6.
11. Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ, Guccione AA, Kazis LE. AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales health status questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:1-10.
12. Fries JF, Spitz PW, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patients' outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:127-34.
13. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-81.
14. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu R, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-6.
15. Torrance GW. Measurement of health status utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30.
16. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:593-600.
17. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences. II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:459-71.
18. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scales, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996:253-65.
19. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 1997;16:155-75.
20. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russel LB, Luce BR, Weinstein MC, Gold MR. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:159-68.
21. von Neuman J, Mongenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
22. Goossens MEJB, Vlaeyen JWS, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, van der Linden SMJP. Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method? Pain 1999;80:365-75.
23. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315-24.
24. Van Gestel AM, Prevoo MLL, van't Hof MA, van Rijswijk MH, van de Putte LBA, van Riel PLCM. The development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. A comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:34-40.
25. van der Heijde DMFM, van't Hof MA, van Riel PLCM et al. Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: first step in the development of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis 1990;49:916-20.
26. van der Heijde DMFM, van't Hof MA, van Riel PLCM, van Leeuven MA, van Rijswijk MH, van de Putte LBA. A comparison of validity of single variables and composite indices for measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1992;51:177-81.
27. van der Heijde DMFM, van't Hof MA, van Riel PLCM, van de Putte LBA. Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 1993;20:579-81.
28. Ritchie DM, Boyle JA, McInnes JM et al. Clinical studies with an articular index for the assessment of joint tenderness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Q J Med 1968;37:393-406.
29. Scott DL, Panayi GS, van Riel PLCM, Smolen J, van de Putte LBA and the Consensus Study group of the European Workshop for Rheumatology. Disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary report of the Consensus Study group of the European Workshop for Rheumatology Research. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1992;10:521-5.
30. Meenan RF, Mason JH. AIMS2 users guide. Boston: Boston R, University Arthritis Center, 1990.
31. Salaffi F, Piva S, Barreca C, Cacace E, Ciancio G, Leardini G, on behalf of Gonarthrosis and Quality of Life (GOQUOLA) Study Group. Validation of an Italian version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 (ITALIAN-AIMS2) for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 2000;39:720-6
32. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:1025-36.
33. Liang HL. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1191-2.
34. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:897-906.
35. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171-8.
36. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27:S178-9.
37. Katz JN, Larson MG, Philips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992;30:917-25.
38. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986:39:897-906.
39. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum, 1988.
40. Hauley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-43.
41. Hauley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29-36.
42. Talamo J, Frater A, Gallivan S, Young A. Use of the short Form 36 (SF-36) for health status measurement in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1997;36:463-9.
43. Ruta DA, Hurst NP, Kind P, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health status in british patients with rheumatoid arthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness of the short form 36-item health survey (SF-36). Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:425-36.
44. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988;240:1285-93.
45. Leardini G, Salaffi F, Montanelli R, Gerzeli S, Canesi B. A multicenter cost-of-illness study on rheumatoid arthritis in Italy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002;20:505-15.
46. Hagen KB, Smedstad LM, Uhlig T, Kvien TK. The responsiveness of health status measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of disease-specific and generic instruments. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1474-80.
47. Husted JA, Gladman DD, Cook RJ, Farewell VT. Responsiveness of health status instruments to changes in articular status and perceived health in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 1998;25:2146-55.
48. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Waslters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999;38:870-7.
49. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, Skeith K, Vincent D. Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology 2000;39:783-90.
50. Verhoeven AC, Boers M, van de Linden S. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59:966-74.
51. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M et al. American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:727-35.
52. Meenan RF, Anderson JJ, Kazis LE et al. Outcome assessments in clinical trials. Evidence for sensitivity of a health status measure. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:1344-52.
53. Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Goldsmith CH, Bennett K, Atra E. Estimation of benefits and risks of the treatment of rheumatoid polyarthritis with glucocorticoids using the health-related quality of life measurements. Rev Rhum Ed Fr 1994;61:255-9.
54. Moore AD, Clarke AE, Danoff DS et al. Can health utility measures be used in lupus research? A comparative validation and reliability study of 4 utility indices. J Rheumatol 1999; 26:1285-90.
55. Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ, Moncur MM, Ettinger B, Tosteson AN. Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should be use? Med Decision Making 1999;19:141-8.
56. Tijhuis GJ, Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Zwinderman, Hazes JMW. Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59:892-7.
57. De Boer YA, Hazes MW, Winia PCA, Brand R, Rozing PM. Comparative Responsiveness of four elbow scoring instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2616-23.
58. Ward MM, Leigh JP. The relative importance of pain and functional disability to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1993;20:1494-9.