Cited by 13Hepatitis C virus researchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in Research

Impact of hepatitis C on health related quality of life: A systematic review and quantitative assessment†

Open access
Spiegel, Brennan M.R., Younossi, Zobair M., Hays, Ron D., Revicki, Dennis, Robbins, Sean, Kanwal, Fasiha·2005·Hepatology

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) diminishes health related quality of life (HRQOL), and it is now common to measure HRQOL in clinical trials. We sought to summarize the HRQOL data in HCV, and to establish the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in HRQOL scores in HCV. We performed a systematic review to identify relevant studies, and converted HRQOL data from each study into clinically interpretable statistics. An expert panel used a modified Delphi technique to estimate the MCID in HCV. We found that patients with HCV scored lower than controls across all scales of the SF-36. Patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR) scored higher across all scales versus patients without SVR, especially in the physical health domains. HRQOL differences did not correspond with differences in liver histology or ALT levels. Based upon the published data, the expert panel concluded that the SF-36 vitality scale was most relevant in patients with HCV, and generated a mean MCID of 4.2 points on this scale. In conclusion, patients with HCV have a clinically significant decrement in HRQOL versus controls, and physical HRQOL improves in patients achieving SVR but not in those without SVR. The data further suggest that traditional outcomes fail to capture the full spectrum of illness related to chronic HCV. A difference of 4.2 points on the SF-36 vitality scale can be used as an estimate of the MCID in HCV, and this value may be used as the basis for power calculations in clinical trials evaluating HRQOL. Supplementary material for this article can be found on the HEPATOLOGY website (http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0270-9139/suppmat/index.html). (HEPATOLOGY 2005;41:790–800.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.20659

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spiegel, B. M. R., Younossi, Z. M., Hays, R. D., Revicki, D., Robbins, S., & Kanwal, F.
Affiliations
  • VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (US)
  • Inova Fairfax Hospital (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Kanwal, Fasiha
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2005-04
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
790-800
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1510601380
Cited by
7
References
43
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Hepatology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (AG-02-004)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20-MD00148-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatitis C virus research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
hepatitis C, health-related quality of life, minimal clinically important difference, SF-36, sustained virological response, chronic hepatitis C, physical health, liver histopathology, ALT levels, clinical trial outcome measures, power analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review