Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: The REMS study

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry

Volumn 80, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1023-1028

  Giordano, A ^a   Pucci, E ^b   Naldi, P ^c   Mendozzi, L ^d   Milanese, C ^a   Tronci, F ^d   Leone, M ^c   Mascoli, N ^a   La Mantia, L ^a   Giuliani, G ^b   Solari, A ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSURGERY   (Italy)

^b Macerata Hospital   (Italy)

^c University Hospital Maggiore della Carita   (Italy)

^d IRCCS FONDAZIONE DON CARLO GNOCCHI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

STEROID; ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE EXACERBATION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS IMPACT SCALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS QUALITY OF LIFE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SELF REPORT; ADOLESCENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISABILITY; EMOTION; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECURRENT DISEASE; ROC CURVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AGENTS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECURRENCE; ROC CURVE; STEROIDS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 69449096824     PISSN: 00223050     EISSN: 1468330X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2008.171181     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Solari A. Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:16. (Pubitemid 40472052)
2. Guyatt GH, Kirtschner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status. What are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:1341-1345
3. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-383 (Pubitemid 34260746)
4. Pfennings LE, van der Ploeg HM, Cohen L, et al. A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients. Qual Life Res 1999;8:481-489 (Pubitemid 29470617)
5. Bethoux F, Miller DM, Kinkel RP. Recovery following acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis: from impairment to quality of life. Mult Scler 2001;7:137-142 (Pubitemid 32514529)
6. Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, et al. Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler 2003;9:411-419 (Pubitemid 36958026)
7. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al. How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29). A comparison with some other self-report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1539-1543 (Pubitemid 41531702)
8. de Groot V, Beckerman H, Uitdehaag BM, et al. The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain 2006;129:2648-2659 (Pubitemid 44522098)
9. Costelloe L, O'Rourke K, Kearney H, et al. The patient knows best: significant change in the physical component of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007;78:841-844 (Pubitemid 47204589)
10. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity. Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000;9(Suppl 2):84-90.
11. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthal Physiol 2004;24:257-273
12. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-468 (Pubitemid 30254341)
13. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, et al. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995;4:187-206.
14. Cella DF, Dineen K, Arnason B, et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 1996;47:129-139 (Pubitemid 26243873)
15. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001;124:962-973 (Pubitemid 32458508)
16. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the "McDonald Criteria". Ann Neurol 2005;58:840-846
17. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale. Neurology 1983;33:1444-1452
18. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993.
19. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming from a clinical epidemiology perspective. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1025-1036
20. Provinciali L, Ceravolo MG, Bartolini M, et al. A multidimensional assessment of multiple sclerosis: relationships between disability domains. Acta Neurol Scand 1999;100:156-162 (Pubitemid 29376826)
21. Solari A, Filippini G, Mendozzi L, et al. Validation of Italian multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;67:158-162 (Pubitemid 29326944)
22. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to score version two of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc, 2000.
23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174
24. Hays RD, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency: Rationale and user's guide for Multitrait Analysis Program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1990;22:167.
25. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, et al. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1349-1378
26. Zou GY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1545-1552 (Pubitemid 40848235)
27. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:142s-58s.
28. Paltamaa J, Sarasoja T, Leskinen E, et al. Measuring deterioration in International Classification of Functioning Domains of people with multiple sclerosis who are ambulatory. Phys Ther 2008;88:176-190 (Pubitemid 351196711)
29. Revicki DA, Gnanasakthy A, Weinfurt K. Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labelling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence Dossier. Qual Life Res 2007;16:717-723 (Pubitemid 46474951)
30. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, et al. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349-362 (Pubitemid 36612040)
31. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
32. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetics. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1137-1141