Patients' ratings of global perceived change during 2 years were strongly influenced by the current health status

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 508-515

  Grøvle, Lars ^a   Haugen, Anne J ^a   Hasvik, Eivind ^a,b   Natvig, Bård ^c   Brox, Jens I ^d   Grotle, Margreth ^e,f  

^a Department of Rheumatology Sykehuset stfold ^*  (Norway)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^e ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^f OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Global perceived change; Minimal clinically important difference; Minimal important change; Outcome assessment; Recall bias; Transition rating

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; FOLLOW UP; GLOBAL PERCEIVED CHANGE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL IMPORTANT CHANGE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCIATICA; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDITY;

GLOBAL PERCEIVED CHANGE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MINIMAL IMPORTANT CHANGE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RECALL BIAS; TRANSITION RATING;

DIAGNOSTIC SELF EVALUATION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; LINEAR MODELS; MENTAL RECALL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIATICA; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84897475498     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. G.H. Guyatt, G.R. Norman, E.F. Juniper, and L.E. Griffith A critical look at transition ratings J Clin Epidemiol 55 2002 900 908 (Pubitemid 35246561)
2. R.H. Dworkin, D.C. Turk, J.T. Farrar, J.A. Haythornthwaite, M.P. Jensen, and N.P. Katz et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations Pain 113 1-2 2005 9 19 (Pubitemid 40038441)
3. K.N. Lohr, and B.J. Zebrack Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities Qual Life Res 18 2009 99 107
4. G.H. Guyatt, D. Osoba, A.W. Wu, K.W. Wyrwich, and G.R. Norman Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures Mayo Clin Proc 77 2002 371 383 (Pubitemid 34260746)
5. C.B. Terwee, S.D. Bot, M.R. de Boer, D.A. van der Windt, D.L. Knol, and J. Dekker et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires J Clin Epidemiol 60 2007 34 42 (Pubitemid 44856236)
6. R. Jaeschke, J. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415 (Pubitemid 20025670)
7. M. Man-Son-Hing, A. Laupacis, K. O'Rourke, F.J. Molnar, J. Mahon, and K.B. Chan et al. Determination of the clinical importance of study results J Gen Intern Med 17 2002 469 476 (Pubitemid 34989015)
8. D.L. Patrick, L.B. Burke, J.H. Powers, J.A. Scott, E.P. Rock, and S. Dawisha et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective Value Health 10 Suppl 2 2007 S125 S137
9. H.C. de Vet, B. Terluin, D.L. Knol, L.D. Roorda, L.B. Mokkink, and R.W. Ostelo et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 37 45
10. R.D. Crosby, R.L. Kolotkin, and G.R. Williams Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life J Clin Epidemiol 56 2003 395 407 (Pubitemid 36694091)
11. D. Revicki, R.D. Hays, D. Cella, and J. Sloan Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 102 109
12. K. Wyrwich, J. Norquist, W. Lenderking, and S. Acaster Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures Qual Life Res 22 2013 1 9
13. G.R. Norman, P. Stratford, and G. Regehr Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach J Clin Epidemiol 50 1997 869 879 (Pubitemid 27423516)
14. M. Ross Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories Psychol Rev 96 2 1989 341
15. M.A. Conway, and C.W. Pleydell-Pearce The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system Psychol Rev 107 2 2000 261
16. J. Schmitt, and R.P. Di Fabio The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86 2005 2270 2276 (Pubitemid 41774600)
17. S.J. Kamper, R.W. Ostelo, D.L. Knol, C.G. Maher, H.C. de Vet, and M.J. Hancock Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 760 766
18. C. Bombardier, J. Hayden, and D.E. Beaton Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures J Rheumatol 28 2001 431 438 (Pubitemid 32165165)
19. J.T. Farrar, J.P. Young Jr., L. LaMoreaux, J.L. Werth, and R.M. Poole Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale Pain 94 2 2001 149 158 (Pubitemid 33016608)
20. L. Grovle, A.J. Haugen, A. Keller, B. Natvig, J.I. Brox, and M. Grotle Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Norwegian versions of the Maine-Seattle Back Questionnaire and the Sciatica Bothersomeness and Frequency Indices Spine 33 21 2008 2347 2353
21. A.J. Haugen, L. Grovle, J.I. Brox, B. Natvig, A. Keller, and D. Soldal et al. Estimates of success in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation depend upon outcome measure Eur Spine J 20 10 2011 1669 1675
22. D.L. Patrick, R.A. Deyo, S.J. Atlas, D.E. Singer, A. Chapin, and R.B. Keller Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica Spine 20 17 1995 1899 1908
23. S.J. Atlas, R.A. Deyo, M. van den Ancker, D.E. Singer, R.B. Keller, and D.L. Patrick The Maine-Seattle back questionnaire: a 12-item disability questionnaire for evaluating patients with lumbar sciatica or stenosis: results of a derivation and validation cohort analysis Spine 28 16 2003 1869 1876 (Pubitemid 37012767)
24. J.E. Ware Jr. SF-36 health survey update Spine 25 24 2000 3130 3139
25. S.S. Coughlin Recall bias in epidemiologic studies J Clin Epidemiol 43 1990 87 91 (Pubitemid 20036970)
26. K. Raphael Recall bias: a proposal for assessment and control Int J Epidemiol 16 1987 167 170 (Pubitemid 17108830)
27. F. Wolfe, and T. Pincus Listening to the patient: a practical guide to self-report questionnaires in clinical care Arthritis Rheum 42 1999 1797 1808 (Pubitemid 30257742)
28. R.W. Ostelo, R.A. Deyo, P. Stratford, G. Waddell, P. Croft, and M. Von Korff et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change Spine 33 1 2008 90 94
29. E.F. Juniper, G.H. Guyatt, A. Willan, and L.E. Griffith Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol 47 1994 81 87 (Pubitemid 24034293)
30. H.C. de Vet, H. Beckerman, C.B. Terwee, B. Terluin, and L.M. Bouter Definition of clinical differences J Rheumatol 33 2006 434 author reply 435
31. H.C. de Vet, C.B. Terwee, R.W. Ostelo, H. Beckerman, D.L. Knol, and L.M. Bouter Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 2006 54
32. A.L. Schwartz, P.M. Meek, L.M. Nail, J. Fargo, M. Lundquist, and M. Donofrio et al. Measurement of fatigue. Determining minimally important clinical differences J Clin Epidemiol 55 2002 239 244 (Pubitemid 34195519)
33. R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer Testing minimal clinically important difference: additional comments and scientific reality testing Spine J 10 4 2010 330 332