Cited by 157Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchCancer survivorship and care

Patients' assessment of quality of life instruments: a randomised study of SIP, SF-36 and SEIQoL-DW in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Neudert, Christian, Wasner, Maria, Borasio, Gian Domenico·2001·Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Abstract

The evaluation of quality of life (QoL) plays an increasingly important role in clinical research and drug trials in ALS. However, most of the scales employed so far are based on a fixed external value system, and may therefore not reflect the patients' subjective perception of QoL accurately. In addition, many ALS patients complain about the psychological distress inflicted by QoL questionnaires which focus on functional status, as they constantly remind patients of their deterioration. We therefore asked 42 ALS patients to assess, using visual analogue scales, their subjective perception of the validity of three QoL instruments as well as the emotional distress caused by them. The scales were: the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual QoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW). Patients were examined at least three times at two-month intervals. The SIP was filled out by all patients, the SF-36 and the SEIQoL-DW were assigned at random. The validity of the SEIQoL-DW was rated higher than that of the SIP (p<0.001) and of the SF-36 (p<0.001). The SIP imparted a higher emotional distress to patients than the SEIQoL-DW (p<0.005), with a trend in the same direction for the SF-36 (p=0.082). The most frequently mentioned QoL-relevant domains in the SEIQoL-DW were family (100%), health (53%), and profession (50%). These results should prompt further discussion and investigation on the most appropriate way to assess QoL in patients with ALS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-510x(01)00612-8

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Neudert, C., Wasner, M., & Borasio, G. D.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Borasio, Gian Domenico
Venue
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-10
Volume
191
Issue
1-2
Pages
103-109
ISSN
0022-510X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101665670
Cited by
157
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
23.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, quality of life assessment, patient perspectives, Sickness Impact Profile, SF-36, SEIQoL-DW, questionnaire validity, emotional distress, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Cues, Demography, Female, Germany, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychological Tests, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Sickness Impact Profile

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