Reliability and validity of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Spine Tumor Module

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 421-430

  Armstrong, Terri S ^a,b   Gning, Ibrahima ^b   Mendoza, Tito R ^b   Vera Bolanos, Elizabeth ^b   Gilbert, Mark R ^b   Rhines, Laurence D ^b   Weinberg, Jeffrey S ^b   Sanchez Williams, Gisela ^b   Levin, Victor ^b   Burton, Allen W ^b   Cleeland, Charles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Spinal cord; Spine; Symptom; Tumor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PAIN; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISTRESS SYNDROME; FATIGUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MD ANDERSON SYMPTOM INVENTORY SPINE TUMOR MODULE; MEASUREMENT; PARESTHESIA; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SLEEP DISORDER; SPINE METASTASIS; SPINE TUMOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SPINAL CORD NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77950584892     PISSN: 15475654     EISSN: 15475646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2009.10.SPINE0943     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Armstrong TS, Cohen MZ, Eriksen L, Cleeland C: Content validity of self-report measurement instruments: an illustration from the development of the Brain Tumor Module of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Oncol Nurs Forum 32: 669-676, 2005
2. Armstrong TS, Gilbert MR: Net clinical benefit: functional endpoints in brain tumor clinical trials. Curr Oncol Rep 9: 60-65, 2007
3. Armstrong TS, Gning I, Mendoza T, Vera E, Gilbert MR, Rhines LD, et al: QL-10: Validation of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory Spine Tumor Module (MDASI-SP), in Abstracts for the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology: November 20-23, 2008. Neuro-oncol 10: 759-915, 2008 (Abstract)
4. Armstrong TS, Gning I, Mendoza TR, Weinberg JS, Gilbert MR, Tortorice ML, et al: Clinical utility of the MDASI-BT in patients with brain metastases. J Pain Symptom Manage 37:331-340, 2009
5. Armstrong TS, Mendoza T, Gning I, Coco C, Cohen MZ, Eriksen L, et al: Validation of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor Module (MDASI-BT). J Neurooncol 80:27-35, 2006
6. Clark JA, Talcott JA: Symptom indexes to assess outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Med Care 39:1118-1130, 2001
7. Cleeland CS: Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 37:16-21, 2007
8. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Chou C, Harle MT, Morrissey M, et al: Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer 89: 1634-1646, 2000
9. Cleeland CS, Nakamura Y, Mendoza TR, Edwards KR, Douglas J, Serlin RC: Dimensions of the impact of cancer pain in a four country sample: new information from multidimensional scaling. Pain 67:267-273, 1996
10. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, ed 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1988
11. Cole JS, Patchell RA: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Lancet Neurol 7:459-466, 2008
12. Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH, et al: The value of postural reduction in the intial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. Paraplegia 7:179-192, 1969
13. Hadley MN, Walters BC, Grabb PA, Oyesiku NM, Przybylski GJ, Resnick DK, et al: Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries. Clin Neurosurg 49:407-498, 2002
14. Hadley MN, Walters BC, Grabb PA, Oyesiku NM, Przybylski GJ, Resnick DK, et al: Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries, 2001. (http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article2081. html) [Accessed December 14, 2009]
15. Harman HH: Modern Factor Analysis, ed 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976
16. Kaiser H: A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35:401-415, 1970
17. Lipscomb J, Reeve BB, Clauser SB, Abrams JS, Bruner DW, Burke LB, et al: Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. J Clin Oncol 25: 5133-5140, 2007
18. Mauer ME, Bottomley A, Taphoorn MJ: Evaluating healthrelated quality of life and symptom burden in brain tumour patients: instruments for use in experimental trials and clinical practice. Curr Opin Neurol 21:745-753, 2008
19. Meert KL, Ofenstein JP, Sarnaik AP: Altered T cell cytokine production following mechanical trauma. Ann Clin Lab Sci 28:283-288, 1998
20. Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Morrissey M, Johnson BA, Wendt JK, et al: The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: use of the Brief Fatigue Inventory. Cancer 85:1186-1196, 1999
21. Mut M, Schiff D, Shaffrey ME: Metastasis to nervous system: spinal epidural and intramedullary metastases. J Neurooncol 75:43-56, 2005
22. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric Theory, ed 3. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994
23. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, Mc-Fadden ET, et al: Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649-655, 1982
24. Osoba D: Translating the science of patient-reported outcomes assessment into clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 37:5-11, 2007
25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79, 2006
26. Ward JH Jr: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236-244, 1963
27. Wells JD, Nicosia S: Scoring acute spinal cord injury: a study of the utility and limitations of five different grading systems. J Spinal Cord Med 18:33-41, 1995