The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relation of Distribution- and Anchor-Based Approaches in Interpretation of Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approaches to interpretation of quality of life changes in clinical trials have fallen into two camps: those that rely on the distribution of changes and the Effect Size (ES), and those that use some external anchor, such as patient judgments of change, which is then used to compute a Minimally Important Difference (MID), the proportion benefiting from treatment, p(B), and the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the ES and p(B), and the impact of the MID on this relationship. METHODS: Simulation was used based on a normal distribution to compute the proportion of patients benefiting in both parallel group and crossover designs, for various values of the ES and the MID. The agreement of the simulation with empirical data from four studies of asthma and respiratory disease was assessed. The effect of skewness in the distributions of change scores on the relationship between ES and p(B) was also examined. RESULTS: The simulation showed a near-linear relationship between ES and p(B), which was nearly independent of the value of the MID. Agreement of the simulation with the empirical data were excellent. Although the curves differed for crossover and parallel group designs, the general form was similar. Introducing moderate skew into the distributions had minimal impact on the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients who will benefit from treatment can be directly estimated from the ES, and is nearly independent of the choice of MID. Effect size and anchor based approaches provide equivalent information in this situation.
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
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
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
A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease
Guyatt, G. H., Berman, L. B., Townsend, M., Pugsley, S. O., & Chambers, L. W. (1987) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.42.10.773 · Cited by 1,721
Self-citationRandomised controlled trial of respiratory rehabilitation
GOLDSTEIN, R. (1994) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90568-1 · Cited by 541
Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials
Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Walter, S. D., Griffith, L. E., & Goldstein, R. S. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690 · Cited by 516
Self-citation
Cited by
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Self-citationMeaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults.
Perera, S., Mody, S. H., Woodman, R. C., & Studenski, S. A. (2006) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x · Cited by 2,513
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 · Cited by 1,341
Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature
Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M. F., & Buchholz, I. (2021) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y · Cited by 917
de Boer, A. G. E. M., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Stalmeier, P. F. M., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B. F., de Haes, J. C. J. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2004) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/b:qure.0000018499.64574.1f · Cited by 743
Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00063.x · Cited by 294
The SF-36 summary scales were valid, reliable, and equivalent in a Chinese population
Lam, C. L. K., Tse, E. Y. Y., Gandek, B., & Fong, D. Y. T. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.008 · Cited by 276
Cognitive behavioural therapies for fibromyalgia
Bernardy, K., Klose, P., Busch, A. J., Choy, E. H., & Häuser, W. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009796.pub2 · Cited by 272
Hartmann, M., Bäzner, E., Wild, B., Eisler, I., & Herzog, W. (2010) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000286958 · Cited by 261
Mols, F., Schoormans, D., de Hingh, I., Oerlemans, S., & Husson, O. (2018) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.31369 · Cited by 180
“9 points) indicated a threshold of discriminating change in scores.(17,18) Analyses were performed in IBM SPSS 24.”
MethodBarber, M. D., Walters, M. D., & Cundiff, G. W. (2006) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.076 · Cited by 171
The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians
Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., Sprangers, M., Ferrans, C., Cella, D., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2006) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0085-y · Cited by 149
Self-citationMeasuring clinically meaningful change following mental health treatment
Eisen, S. V., Ranganathan, G., Seal, P., & Spiro, A. (2007) · The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research · doi:10.1007/s11414-007-9066-2 · Cited by 126
Coyne, K. S., Tubaro, A., Brubaker, L., & Bavendam, T. (2006) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.042 · Cited by 96
Busse, J. W., Montori, V. M., Krasnik, C., Patelis-Siotis, I., & Guyatt, G. H. (2009) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000162296 · Cited by 96
Ebrahim, S., Johnston, B. C., Akl, E. A., Mustafa, R. A., Sun, X., Walter, S. D., Heels-Ansdell, D., Alonso-Coello, P., & Guyatt, G. H. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.014 · Cited by 72
Self-citationPatient‐reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care
Haywood, K. L. (2007) · Musculoskeletal Care · doi:10.1002/msc.101 · Cited by 30
Methods for explaining the clinical significance of health status measures
Guyatt, G., Osoba, D., Wu, A., Wyrwich, K., & Norman, G. (2002) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0149-2918(02)85088-3 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Norman, G. R., Gwadry Sridhar, F., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1039-1047
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058873359
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 24.16
- 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.
