Assessing patients' improvement in clinical trials

BMJ

Volumn 336, Issue 7656, 2008, Pages 1258-1259

  Spertus, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGINA PECTORIS; CARDIOMYOPATHY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; EDITORIAL; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; GLOBAL CHANGE; HEALTH STATUS; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER BIAS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECALL BIAS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL STATUS; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PATIENTS; PHYSICIANS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 45249092760     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39570.393218.BE     Document Type: Editorial

References (12)

1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622-9.
2. Lewis EF, Johnson PA, Johnson W, Collins C, Griffin L, Stevenson LW. Preferences for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001;20:1016-24.
3. Spertus J. Selecting end points in clinical trials: what evidence do we really need to evaluate a new treatment? Am Heart J 2001;142:745-7.
4. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, Lynn J, Soukup JR, Cook EF, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. HELP Investigators. Hospitalized elderly longitudinal project. JAMA 1998;279:371-5.
5. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
6. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81-7.
7. Evangelou E, Tsianos G, Ioannidis JPA. Doctors' versus patients' global assessments of treatment effectiveness: empirical survey of diverse treatments in clinical trials. BMJ 2008; doi: 10.1136/bmj.39560.759572.BE.
8. Goldman L, Cook EF, Mitchell N, Flatley M, Sherman H, Cohn PF. Pitfalls in the serial assessment of cardiac functional status. How a reduction in "ordinary" activity may reduce the apparent degree of cardiac compromise and give a misleading impression of improvement. J Chronic Dis 1982;35:763-71.
9. Raphael C, Briscoe C, Davies J, Ian Whinnett Z, Manisty C, Sutton R, et al. Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart 2007;93:476-82.
10. Burkhoff D, Schmidt S, Schulman SP, Myers J, Resar J, Becker LC, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a prospective randomised trial. ATLANTIC Investigators. Angina treatments-lasers and normal therapies in comparison. Lancet 1999;354:885-90.
11. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2006www.fda.gov/cber/gdIns/prolbl.htm.
12. Spertus J, Peterson E, Conard MW, Heidenreich PA, Krumholz HM, Jones P, et al. Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: a comparison of methods. Am Heart J 2005;150:707-15.