Patient reported outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis: Where are we and where are we going?

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 1482-1483

  Bansback, Nick J ^a   Anis, Aslam H ^a,b   Marra, Carlo A ^b  

^a PROVIDENCE HEALTH CARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISEASE ACTIVITY; EDITORIAL; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HEALTH STATUS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SHORT FORM 36; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; HUMANS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 49049100241     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Linde L, Sørensen J, Østergaard M, Hørslev-Pedersen K, Lund Hetland M. Health-related quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, 15D, EQ-5D, RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008;35:1528-37.
2. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1571-82.
3. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004;42:1125-31.
4. Marra CA, Rashidi AA, Guh D, et al. Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients? Qual Life Res 2005;14:1333-44.
5. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003;41:791-801.
6. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, Ingram M, Anis AH, Symmons DP. The validity and responsiveness of generic utility measures in rheumatoid arthritis: a review. J Rheumatol 2008;35:592-602.
7. Chiou CF, Sherbourne CD, Cornelio I, et al. Development and validation of the revised Cedars-Sinai Health-related Quality of Life for Rheumatoid Arthritis instrument. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:856-63.
8. Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23 Suppl 39:S53-7.
9. Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, Lima VD, Sayre EC, Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine 2008;33:1384-90.
10. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:239-46.
11. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1358-62.