nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.11.2013

Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) questionnaire

verfasst von: Ling-Hsiang Chuang, Andrew Garratt, Stephen Brealey

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the responsiveness of the KQoL-26 and demonstrate minimal change for this instrument in two different samples of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee.

Methods

Data were collected from two surveys conducted alongside a clinical trial: the arthroscopy sample and the general practitioner (GP) sample. The effect size (ES) was used to assess responsiveness. Anchor-based minimal change included minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and receiver operator characteristic curves; standardized error of measurement and minimal detectable change (MDC) was employed for distribution-based approaches. The KQoL-26 results are compared with those for the Lysholm Knee Score, EQ-5D and SF-36.

Results

The arthroscopy sample consisted of 121 participants and the GP sample of 218 participants at baseline. The largest ES was found for the KQoL-26 emotional functioning scale in both samples. The results were in favour of the condition-specific instrument. The MCID for KQoL-26 physical functioning, activities limitations and emotional functioning scales were 3, 15 and 18, respectively, in the arthroscopy sample; they were 11, 16 and 24 in the GP sample. The MDC 95 % was estimated as 18, 28 and 34, and 15, 24 and 30 in each sample, respectively.

Conclusions

The KQoL-26 emotional functional scale was the most responsive of all scales. It is recommended that an instrument such as the KQoL-26 that includes emotional functioning should be included rather than the Lysholm in future clinical trials of patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee.

Vorheriger Artikel Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement

Nächster Artikel Development of a vision-targeted health-related quality of life item measure

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Garratt, A. M., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal, 324, 1417–1419.PubMedCrossRef

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Garratt, A. M., Brealey, S., & Gillespie, W. (2004). Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: A structured review. Rheumatology (Oxford), 43, 1414–1423.CrossRef

Irrgang, J. J., Anderson, A. F., Boland, A. L., et al. (2001). Development and validation of the international keen documentation committee subjective knee form. American Journal of Sport Medicine, 29, 600–613.

Roos, E. M., Roos, H. P., Lohmander, L. S., Ekdahl, C., & Beynnon, B. D. (1998). Knee injuries and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 78, 88–96.CrossRef

Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluation patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14), 1–14.PubMed

Garratt, A. M., Brealey, S., Robling, M., et al. (2008). Development of the knee quality of life (KQoL-26) 26-item questionnaire: Data quality, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 48–59.PubMedCrossRef

Hay, R., & Hadorn, D. (1992). Responsiveness to change: An aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Quality of Life Research, 1, 73–75.CrossRef

10.

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.

11.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., et al. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2007). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcome. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lysholm, J., & Gillquist, J. (1982). Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 10, 150–154.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Brook, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.CrossRef

15.

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The SF-36 short-form health status survey 1, conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Brealey, S. D., Atwell, C., Bryan, S., et al. (2006). The DAMASK trial protocol: A pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate whether GPs should have direct access to MRI for patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 133.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Briggs, K., Lysholm, J., Tegner, Y., Rodkey, W. G., Kocher, M. S., & Steadman, J. R. (2009). The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm Score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the KNEE: 25 year later. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 37, 890–897.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ware, J., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and mental health survey scale: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

20.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87.PubMedCrossRef

21.

StataCorp. (2008). Stata statistical software: Release 10.1. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation.

22.

SPSS Inc. (2010). SPSS statistical software 17.0. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc.

23.

Cohen, J. (1997). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.

24.

Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 897–906.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wyrwich, K., Nienaber, N., Tierney, W., & Wolinsky, F. (1999). Linking clinical relevant and statistical significant in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 37, 469–478.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Dawson, J., Doll, H., Boller, I., Fitzpatrick, R., Little, C., Rees, J., et al. (2008). Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Quality of Life Research, 17(10), 1257–1267.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Middel, B., Goudriaan, H., de Greef, M., et al. (2006). Recall bias did not affect perceived magnitude of changes in health-related functional status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 503–511.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) questionnaire
verfasst von: Ling-Hsiang Chuang
Andrew Garratt
Stephen Brealey
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0298-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2013

Measurement bias of the SF-36 Health Survey in older adults with chronic conditions

Deriving clinically meaningful cut-scores for fatigue in a cohort of breast cancer survivors: a Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) Study

Pitfalls in subgroup analysis based on growth mixture models: a commentary on van Leeuwen et al. (2012)

Integrating health-related quality of life with sickness leave days for return-to-work assessment in traumatic limb injuries

Physical activity and health-related quality of life among adult women in Cali, Colombia: a cross-sectional study

Strengthening the assessment of factorial invariance across population subgroups: a commentary on Varni et al. (2013)

Premium Partner