The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the responsiveness of the endometriosis health profile questionnaire: The EHP-30
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the sensitivity to change of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire.Setting The Women's Center, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford.Design Postal survey to 66 women undergoing conservative surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. The EHP-30 and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) were administered 2 weeks before the operation, and 4 months post-operatively. At T2 a transition question was included to evaluate changes in patients health status. To evaluate responsiveness effect sizes, standardised response means, the index of responsiveness and the minimally and clinically important differences were calculated.Results Forty (66.6%) patients returned the questionnaires at time 1 and 2. Overall less responsive effect size scores were found for the SF-36 (0.1-0.5) compared to the EHP-30 (-0.1-1.1) for all patients who had undergone treatment. Minimally important differences and the index of responsiveness were overall higher for the EHP-30 (0.4-2.0) compared to the SF-36 (0.1-1.0). Change scores for four of the five scales were significantly correlated with women's responses to the transition question.Conclusions Results suggest that the EHP-30 is sensitive to change. Its application in clinical trials should prove beneficial in assessing the impact of medical and surgical interventions upon quality of life for women with endometriosis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“To date, the only validated endometriosis-specific HRQoL instruments are EHP-30 and its shorter version, EHP-5 (25-29).”
From Quantification of the impact of endometriosis symptoms on health-related quality of life and work productivity (2011) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“was found to be more sensitive to change than the generic SF-36 in women undergoing treatment for endometriosis-associated pain (Jones et al., 2004).”
From Health-related quality of life in women with endometriosis: psychometric validation of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Jones et al., 2004
In the citing paper
“The Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) is the only validated disease-specific HRQoL scale for use in endometriosis [48,49].”
From Health-related quality of life in women with endometriosis: a systematic review (2012) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cites
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015 · Cited by 2,401
Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.
Guyatt, G., Walter, S. D., & Norman, G. (1987) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 · Cited by 1,997
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
JUNIPER, E. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 · Cited by 1,824
Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis, and Interpretation
Fayers, P. M. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,490
Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation
Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008 · Cited by 921
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0470846283 · Cited by 769
Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria
Lohr, K. N., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Burnam, M. A., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E. B., & Roberts, J. S. (1996) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80054-3 · Cited by 591
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaviourial Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
- Fitzpatrick R. Applications of health status measures. In: Jenkinson, C (ed.), Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes, London: UCL Press, 1994: 27-41.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zondervan, K. T., Becker, C. M., Koga, K., Missmer, S. A., Taylor, R. N., & Viganò, P. (2018) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0008-5 · Cited by 1,257
De Graaff, A. A., D'Hooghe, T. M., Dunselman, G. A. J., Dirksen, C. D., Hummelshoj, L., WERF EndoCost Consortium, Simoens, S., Bokor, A., Brandes, I., Brodszky, V., et al. (2013) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det284 · Cited by 473
Della Corte, L., Di Filippo, C., Gabrielli, O., Reppuccia, S., La Rosa, V. L., Ragusa, R., Fichera, M., Commodari, E., Bifulco, G., & Giampaolino, P. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17134683 · Cited by 387
Fourquet, J., Báez, L., Figueroa, M., Iriarte, R. I., & Flores, I. (2011) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.04.095 · Cited by 262
“To date, the only validated endometriosis-specific HRQoL instruments are EHP-30 and its shorter version, EHP-5 (25-29).”
BackgroundVitonis, A. F., Vincent, K., Rahmioglu, N., Fassbender, A., Buck Louis, G. M., Hummelshoj, L., Giudice, L. C., Stratton, P., Adamson, G. D., Becker, C. M., et al. (2014) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.1244 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, G., Jenkinson, C., & Kennedy, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jones, Georgina
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 705-713
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2000813795
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- McGill University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- endometriosis, Endometriosis Health Profile-30, SF-36, questionnaire responsiveness, sensitivity to change, minimally important difference, quality of life, endometriosis-associated pain, conservative surgery
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Endometriosis, England, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Social Support, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, 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
