The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Measurement Sensitivity of Short and Longer Health Status Instruments
Abstract
Short measures of health status are used increasingly in health services research, yet their sensitivities to clinical change have not been compared with longer, established instruments. In this study, 5 health status measures were administered preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively to 54 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. These instruments included the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)--an established, long measure--and 4 short forms: the SF-36, Functional Status Questionnaire, shortened Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales, and Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire. Scores for physical, psychological, and global dimensions were constructed by aggregating subscales. Sensitivity to change, or responsiveness, was expressed with the standardized response mean (SRM), calculated as the mean change in score divided by the standard deviation of the change in score. The sampling distribution of the SRM was estimated with a jackknife procedure. Preoperative scores were moderately to highly correlated across instruments. The physical and global dimension SRMs of the brief health status measures ranged from 0.85 to 1.27 and were as large as or larger than the corresponding SIP SRMs. The SIP had the highest SRM on the psychological dimension. None of the instruments was significantly more sensitive than the others at the critical value (P = 0.005) adjusted for multiple comparisons. The brief health status measures were equally or more responsive than the SIP after total hip arthroplasty in the physical and global dimensions. Much larger samples are required to demonstrate statistically significant differences in SRMs among instruments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Cited by
Ware, J. E. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008 · Cited by 4,455
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Rachel Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004 · Cited by 4,458
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Monitoring Depression Treatment Outcomes With the Patient Health Questionnaire-9
L??we, B., Un??tzer, J., Callahan, C. M., Perkins, A. J., & Kroenke, K. (2004) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200412000-00006 · Cited by 1,354
Krebs, E. E., Lorenz, K. A., Bair, M. J., Damush, T. M., Wu, J., Sutherland, J. M., Asch, S. M., & Kroenke, K. (2009) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0981-1 · Cited by 782
HOPKINS, R. O., WEAVER, L. K., POPE, D., ORME, J. F., BIGLER, E. D., & LARSON-LOHR, V. (1999) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9708059 · Cited by 668
Understanding the Relevance of Measured Change Through Studies of Responsiveness
Beaton, D. E. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00015 · Cited by 344
The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty
Brokelman, R. B. G., Haverkamp, D., van Loon, C., Hol, A., van Kampen, A., & Veth, R. (2012) · European Orthopaedics and Traumatology · doi:10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3 · Cited by 260
Garratt, A. M., Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., & Russell, I. T. (1994) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.3.4.186 · Cited by 196
Development of the Short Form Endometriosis Health Profile Questionnaire: the EHP-5
Jones, G., Jenkinson, C., & Kennedy, S. (2004) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/b:qure.0000021321.48041.0e · Cited by 137
Suarez‐Almazor, M. E., Kendall, C., Johnson, J. A., Skeith, K., & Vincent, D. (2000) · Rheumatology · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/39.7.783 · Cited by 134
Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue
Brown, L. F., Kroenke, K., Theobald, D. E., & Wu, J. (2011) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2 · Cited by 98
Konttinen, H., Peltonen, M., Sjöström, L., Carlsson, L., & Karlsson, J. (2015) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.095182 · Cited by 83
Hawthorne, G., Mouthaan, J., Forbes, D., & Novaco, R. W. (2006) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-005-0986-y · Cited by 77
Donta, S. T., Engel, C. C., Collins, J. F., Baseman, J. B., Dever, L. L., Taylor, T., Boardman, K. D., Kazis, L. E., Martin, S. E., Horney, R. A., et al. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-2-200407200-00006 · Cited by 54
Comparative responsiveness of pain measures in cancer patients
Kroenke, K., Theobald, D., Wu, J., Tu, W., & Krebs, E. E. (2012) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.004 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Katz, J. N., Larson, M. G., Phillips, C. B., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 917-925
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043404666
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
