Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 4, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Revicki, Dennis A ^a   Cella, David ^b   Hays, Ron D ^c   Sloan, Jeff A ^d   Lenderking, William R ^e   Aaronson, Neil K ^f  

^a UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^b EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e PFIZER INC   (United States)

^f NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTENT VALIDITY; DOCUMENTATION; DRUG LEGISLATION; EFFECT SIZE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY CONTROL; SELF REPORT; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRIANGULATION; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG LABELING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PACKAGING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRIALS; DRUG LABELING; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRODUCT LABELING; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 33750460595     PISSN: 14777525     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-70     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B: Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 1999, 2:113-127.
2. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, Barofsky I, Berzon R, Leidy NK, Rothman M: Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000, 9:887-900.
3. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P: Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy end-points in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 2004, 25:535-552.
4. Food and Drug Administration: Draft Guidance for Industryon Patient-reported Outcome measures: Use in Medicinal Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Federal Register 71(23):5862-5863. February 3, 2006;
5. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G: Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40:171-178.
6. Hays R, Revicki DA: Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). In Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials Second edition. Edited by: Fayers P, Hays R. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
7. Guyatt G, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR: Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002, 77:371-383.
8. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR: Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:395-407.
9. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T, Sloan JA: Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:285-295.
10. Sprangers MAG, Moinpour CM, Moyniyhan TJ, Patrick DL, Revicki DA: Assessing meaningful changes in quality of life over time: a user's guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002, 77:561-571.
11. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27:S178-S189.
12. Liang MJ, Fossel AH, Larson MG: Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990, 28:632-642.
13. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Second edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
14. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003, 41:582-592.
15. Wyrwich KW, Tierney W, Wolinsky F: Further evidence supporting a SEM-based criteria for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:861-873.
16. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber N, Tierney W, Wolinsky F: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999, 37:469-478.
17. Osoba D: The clinical value and meaning of health-related quality-of-life outcomes in oncology. In Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Measures, Methods, and Applications Edited by: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
18. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10:407-415.
19. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K: Meaningful changes in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:207-221.
20. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A, Holmgren E, Eton T, Ayanian JZ, West DW: Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution - and anchor-based approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:1241-1251.
21. Niebauer K, Dewilde S, Fox-Rushby J, Revicki DA: Impact of omalizumab on quality-of-life outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006, 96:316-326.