Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective, multicenter study

Cancer

Volumn 121, Issue 17, 2015, Pages 3027-3035

  Hui, David ^a   Shamieh, Omar ^b   Paiva, Carlos Eduardo ^c   Perez Cruz, Pedro Emilio ^d   Kwon, Jung Hye ^e   Muckaden, Mary Ann ^f   Park, Minjeong ^a   Yennu, Sriram ^a   Kang, Jung Hun ^g   Bruera, Eduardo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b KING HUSSEIN CANCER CENTER   (Jordan)

^c BARRETOS CANCER HOSPITAL   (Brazil)

^d PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^e Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital   (South Korea)

^f TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (India)

^g Department of Internal Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

neoplasms; outcome measures; pain; sample size; sensitivity and specificity; symptom assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DETERIORATION; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; EDMONTON SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT SCALE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEOPLASMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROC CURVE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84939573592     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29437     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Seow H, Barbera L, Sutradhar R, et al., Trajectory of performance status and symptom scores for patients with cancer during the last six months of life. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 1151-1158.
2. Hui D, Bruera E,. A personalized approach to assessing and managing pain in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 1640-1646.
3. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, et al., The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care. 1991; 7: 6-9.
4. Philip J, Smith WB, Craft P, et al., Concurrent validity of the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and the Brief Pain Inventory. Support Care Cancer. 1998; 6: 539-541.
5. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M,. Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer. 2000; 88: 2164-2171.
6. Stromgren AS, Goldschmidt D, Groenvold M, et al., Self-assessment in cancer patients referred to palliative care: a study of feasibility and symptom epidemiology. Cancer. 2002; 94: 512-520.
7. Moro C, Brunelli C, Miccinesi G, et al., Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: Italian validation in two palliative care settings. Support Care Cancer. 2006; 14: 30-37.
8. Nekolaichuk C, Watanabe S, Beaumont C,. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991-2006). Palliat Med. 2008; 22: 111-122.
9. Barbera L, Seow H, Howell D, et al., Symptom burden and performance status in a population-based cohort of ambulatory cancer patients. Cancer. 2010; 116: 5767-5776.
10. Dudgeon D, King S, Howell D, et al., Cancer Care Ontario's experience with implementation of routine physical and psychological symptom distress screening. Psychooncology. 2012; 21: 357-364.
11. Watanabe SM, Nekolaichuk CL, Beaumont C,. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a proposed tool for distress screening in cancer patients: development and refinement. Psychooncology. 2012; 21: 977-985.
12. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH,. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415.
13. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, et al., Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. 2000; 88: 287-294.
14. Hui D, Bruera E,. Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: the anchor is key. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 45: e4-e5.
15. Ewing JA,. Detecting alcoholism. The CAGE questionnaire. JAMA. 1984; 252: 1905-1907.
16. Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, et al., The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997; 13: 128-137.
17. Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, et al., A comprehensive study of psychometric properties of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Spanish advanced cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47: 1863-1872.
18. Kwon JH, Nam SH, Koh S, et al., Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in Korean patients with cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 46: 947-956.
19. Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, et al., Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA. 1999; 282: 1157-1162.
20. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G,. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009; 17: 163-170.
21. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, et al., Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 82.
22. Farrar JT, Pritchett YL, Robinson M, et al., The clinical importance of changes in the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for worst, least, and average pain intensity: analyses of data from clinical trials of duloxetine in pain disorders. J Pain. 2010; 11: 109-118.
23. Sloan JA,. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD. 2005; 2: 57-62.
24. Akobeng AK,. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007; 96: 644-647.
25. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al., Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007; 7: 541-546.
26. 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.
27. Bedard G, Zeng L, Zhang L, et al., Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 46: 192-200.
28. Wyrwich KW, Wolinsky FD,. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000; 6: 39-49.
29. Bush SH, Parsons HA, Palmer JL, et al., Single- vs. multiple-item instruments in the assessment of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010; 39: 564-571.
30. Reddy S, Bruera E, Pace E, et al., Clinically important improvement in the intensity of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. J Palliat Med. 2007; 10: 1068-1075.
31. Hui D, Arthur J, Dalal S, Bruera E,. Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer. 2012; 20: 1779-1785.
32. Lydick E, Epstein RS,. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993; 2: 221-226.
33. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al., Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47: 81-87.