Interpretation of the Swedish Self Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal cancer: Cutoff levels and minimum clinically important differences

Head and Neck

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 689-695

  Tuomi, Lisa ^a   Johansson, Mia ^a   Andréll, Paulin ^b   Finizia, Caterina ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA ACADEMY AT UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

laryngeal neoplasms; patient outcome assessment; quality of life; Swedish Self Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer (S SECEL); voice

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL FEATURE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LARYNX CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE SCORE; PREMEDICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM ACCEPTABILITY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REFERENCE VALUE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF EVALUATION; SELF EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION EXPERIENCES AFTER LARYNGEAL CANCER; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SPEECH REHABILITATION; SWEDISH CITIZEN; COMMUNICATION DISORDERS; COMPLICATION; DISABILITY; LARYNGEAL NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH; VOICE;

AGED; COMMUNICATION DISORDERS; DIAGNOSTIC SELF EVALUATION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LARYNGEAL NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROC CURVE; SPEECH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VOICE;

EID: 84930174462     PISSN: 10433074     EISSN: 10970347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hed.23955     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Stoicheff ML,. Voice following radiotherapy. Laryngoscope 1975; 85: 608-618.
2. van Gogh CD, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Boon-Kamma BA, et al., The efficacy of voice therapy in patients after treatment for early glottic carcinoma. Cancer 2006; 106: 95-105.
3. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, et al., A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001; 258: 77-82.
4. Bibby JR, Cotton SM, Perry A, Corry JF,. Voice outcomes after radiotherapy treatment for early glottic cancer: assessment using multidimensional tools. Head Neck 2008; 30: 600-610.
5. Krengli M, Policarpo M, Manfredda I, et al., Voice quality after treatment for T1a glottic carcinoma-radiotherapy versus laser cordectomy. Acta Oncol 2004; 43: 284-289.
6. van Gogh CD, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Wedler-Peeters J, Langendijk JA, Mahieu HF,. Prospective evaluation of voice outcome during the first two years in male patients treated by radiotherapy or laser surgery for T1a glottic carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269: 1647-1652.
7. van der Molen L, van Rossum MA, Jacobi I, et al., Pre- and posttreatment voice and speech outcomes in patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy: expert listeners' and patient's perception. J Voice 2012; 26: 664.e25-e33.
8. Adams G, Burnett R, Mills E, Penniment M,. Objective and subjective changes in voice quality after radiotherapy for early (T1 or T2, N0) laryngeal cancer: a pilot prospective cohort study. Head Neck 2013; 35: 376-380.
9. Morgan DA, Robinson HF, Marsh L, Bradley PJ,. Vocal quality 10 years after radiotherapy for early glottic cancer. Clin Radiol 1988; 39: 295-296.
10. Agarwal JP, Baccher GK, Waghmare CM, et al., Factors affecting the quality of voice in the early glottic cancer treated with radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009; 90: 177-182.
11. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al., The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365-376.
12. Bjordal K, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Tollesson E, et al., Development of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Acta Oncol 1994; 33: 879-885.
13. Johansson M, Rydén A, Finizia C,. Self evaluation of communication experiences after laryngeal cancer-a longitudinal questionnaire study in patients with laryngeal cancer. BMC Cancer 2008; 8: 80.
14. Al-Mamgani A, Tans L, van Rooij P, Levendag PC,. A single-institutional experience of 15 years of treating T3 laryngeal cancer with primary radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 1000-1006.
15. Angel D, Doyle PC, Fung K,. Measuring voice outcomes following treatment for laryngeal cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11: 415-420.
16. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, et al., The Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6: 66-70.
17. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G,. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999; 13: 557-569.
18. Blood GW,. Development and assessment of a scale addressing communication needs of patients with laryngectomies. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1993; 2: 82-87.
19. Evitts PM, Kasapoglu F, Demirci U, Miller JS,. Communication adjustment of patients with a laryngectomy in Turkey: analysis by type of surgery and mode of speech. Psychol Health Med 2011; 16: 650-660.
20. Schindler A, Mozzanica F, Brignoli F, Maruzzi P, Evitts P, Ottaviani F,. Reliability and validity of the Italian self-evaluation of communication experiences after laryngeal cancer questionnaire. Head Neck 2013; 35: 1606-1615.
21. Finizia C, Bergman B, Lindström J,. A cross-sectional validation study of Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer-a questionnaire for use in the voice rehabilitation of laryngeal cancer patients. Acta Oncol 1999; 38: 573-580.
22. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC,. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-546.
23. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J,. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102-109.
24. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J,. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 139-144.
25. Finizia C, Palmé C, Bergman B,. A longitudinal study of the Swedish Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer questionnaire in patients treated for laryngeal cancer. Acta Oncol 2002; 41: 262-268.
26. Finizia C, Hammerlid E, Westin T, Lindström J,. Quality of life and voice in patients with laryngeal carcinoma: a posttreatment comparison of laryngectomy (salvage surgery) versus radiotherapy. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 1566-1573.
27. Johansson M, Rydén A, Finizia C,. Is a line the same as a box? Speech assessment by VAS is not superior to Likert scales in laryngeal cancer patients. Med Sci Monit 2007; 13: Cr481-Cr487.
28. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR,; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371-383.
29. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW,. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582-592.
30. Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R,. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 2005; 25: 250-261.