A new approach to combining clinical relevance and statistical significance for evaluation of quality of life changes in the individual patient

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 171-179

  Kemmler, G ^a   Zabernigg, A ^b   Gattringer, K ^b   Rumpold, G ^a   Giesinger, J ^a   Sperner Unterweger, B ^a   Holzner, B ^a  

^a INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

EORTC QLQ C30; Minimal detectable change; Minimal important difference; Quality of life; Relevant change; Reliable change index

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 72749112627     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.016     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Berry D.L., Trigg J., Lober W.B., Karras B.T., Galligan M.L., Austin-Seymour M., et al. Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part I: development and pilot testing. Oncol Nurs Forum 31 (2004) E75-E83
2. Holzner B., Zabernigg A., Kemmler G., Baier S., Kopp M., and Sperner-Unterweger B. Computerized assessment of quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Qual Life Res 13 (2004) 1523
3. Jones J.B., Snyder C.F., and Wu A.W. Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 1407-1417
4. Velikova G., Booth L., Smith A.B., Brown P.M., Lynch P., Brown J.M., et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22 (2004) 714-724
5. Halyard M.Y. Is the use of QOL data really any different than other medical testing?. Curr Probl Cancer 30 (2006) 261-271
6. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.D., and Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 395-407
7. Yost K.J., and Eton D.T. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences. The FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof 28 (2005) 172-191
8. Revicki D., Hays R.D., Cella D., and Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 102-109
9. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
10. Hays R.D., Farivar S.S., and Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD 2 (2005) 63-67
11. Cella D., Eton D., Fairclough D., Bonomi P., Heyes A.E., Silberman C., et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 285-295
12. Eton D.T., Cella D., Yost K.J., Yount S.E., Peterman A.H., Neuberg D.S., et al. A combination of anchor-based and distribution-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 898-910
13. Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., and Pater J. Interpreting the significance of change in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol 16 (1998) 139-144
14. Rodrigues G., Bezjak A., Osoba D., Catton P., Tsuji D., Taylor D., et al. The relationship of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores to ratings on the Subjective Significance Questionnaire in men with localized prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 13 (2004) 1235-1246
15. Sloan J.A., Cella D., and Hays R.D. Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step towards consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 1217-1219
16. Ringash J., O'Sullivan B., Bezjak A., and Redelmeier D.A. Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer 110 (2007) 196-202
17. Cella D., Bullinger M., Scott C., and Barofsky I. Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (2002) 384-392
18. Wyrwich K.W., Bullinger M., Aaronson N., Hays R.D., Patrick D.L., Symonds T., and The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 14 (2005) 285-295
19. Schmitt J.S., and Di Fabio R.P. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1008-1018
20. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.D., and Williams G.R. An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1153-1160
21. Wyrwich K.W., Nienaber N.A., Tierwy W.M., and Wolinsky F.D. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37 (1999) 469-478
22. Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N.J., et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. J Nat Cancer Inst 85 (1993) 364-376
23. Sprangers M.A., Cull A., Groenvold M., Bjordal K., Blazeby J., and Aaronson N.K. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: an update and overview. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Qual Life Res 7 (1998) 291-300
24. Jacobson N.S., and Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59 (1991) 12-19
25. Speer D.C. Clinically significant change: Jacobson and Truax (1991) revisited. J Consult Clin Psychol 60 (1992) 402-408
26. De Vet H.C.W., Ostelo R.W., Terwee C.B., van der Roer N., Knol D.N., Beckerman H., et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 131-142
27. Pool J.J., Ostelo R.W., Hoving J.L., Bouter L.M., and de Vet H.C. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 32 (2007) 3047-3051
28. Fischer D., Stewart A.L., Bloch D.A., Lorig K., Laurent D., and Holman H. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 282 (1999) 1157-1162
29. Guyatt G., Norman G.R., Juniper E.F., and Griffith L.E. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 900-908
30. Metz S.M., Wyrwich K.W., Babu A.N., Kroenke K., Tierny W.M., and Wolinsky F.D. Validity of patient-reported health-related quality of life global ratings of change using structural equation modeling. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 1193-1202