Cited by 573Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments

Wiebe, Samuel, Guyatt, Gordon, Weaver, Bruce, Matijevic, Suzan, Sidwell, Casey·2003·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

We assessed the relative responsiveness of generic and specific quality of life instruments in 43 randomized controlled trials that compared head-to-head 31 generic and 84 specific instruments. Using weighted effect size as the metric of responsiveness, we assessed the impact of instrument type, disease category, and magnitude of underlying therapeutic effect on responsiveness, and assessed the responsiveness of specific instruments relative to the corresponding domains of generic measures. In studies with a nonzero therapeutic effect, specific instruments (mean = 0.57) were significantly more responsive than generic instruments (mean = 0.39, P =.01), and than the corresponding domains of generic instruments (mean = 0.40, P =.03). Studies with low, medium, and high therapeutic effects showed a corresponding gradation in responsiveness differences between specific and generic instruments. We conclude that, overall, specific instruments are more responsive than generic tools, and that investigators may come to misleading conclusions about relative instrument responsiveness if they include studies in which the magnitude of the underlying therapeutic effect is zero.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1

Cites

3 of 3 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
Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S., & Sidwell, C.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • London Health Sciences Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Wiebe, Samuel
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
52-60
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087259067
Cited by
573
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 30
FWCI
40.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
quality of life instruments, responsiveness, disease-specific quality of life measures, therapeutic effects, instrument comparison, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Health Status Indicators, Humans, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size

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