Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2011

In prospective study using Specific Quality of Life & Outcomes Response-Venous (SQOR-V) questionnaire the recall bias had the same magnitude as the minimally important difference

Auteurs: Fedor Lurie, Robert L. Kistner

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2011

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether the measurement error, and recall bias can reach magnitudes comparable to minimally important difference (MID) in symptoms scores used in chronic venous disease-specific quality of life QOL instruments, such as Specific Quality of Life & Outcomes Response-Venous (SQOR-V) questionnaire.

Methods

Prospective non-randomized study of 150 patients with primary chronic venous disease. SQOR-V questionnaire was administered prior to clinical visit (in 32 patients twice), and 1 month post-treatment. Patients were asked to recall their symptoms 12 months later. Measurement error (SEM) was calculated from repeated baseline measurements. MID was derived from change in the symptom score (SS) part of the SQOR-V questionnaire at 1 month. Recall bias was calculated from 12-month recall data.

Results

SEM was 1.91, the recall bias was −3.16 (95% CI from −4.08 to −2.24), and the MID was 3.7. In the treatment group the recall bias was negative (recall more severe symptoms than they actually were at the baseline), patients in the observation group had positive recall bias. SS change moderately correlated with transition rating index (Spearman rank-order correlation 0.526, P < 0.0001), and strongly correlated with the baseline value (Pearson r = 0.84).

Conclusion

The measurement error of patient-reported symptoms scores included in disease-specific QOL instruments is small, but recall bias is close in magnitude to MID.
vorige artikel Importance of patient satisfaction with care in predicting osteoarthritis-specific health-related quality of life one year after total joint arthroplasty
volgende artikel The perceived impact of cancer on quality of life for post-treatment survivors of childhood cancer
Literatuur
1.
Meissner, M. H., Eklof, B., Gloviczki, P., Lohr, J. M., Lurie, F., Kistner, R., et al. (2007). Mapping the future: organizational, clinical, and research priorities in venous disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 46(Suppl S), 84S–93S.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Kundu, S., Lurie, F., Millward, S. F., Padberg, F., Jr, Vedantham, S., Elias, S., et al. (2007). Recommended reporting standards for endovenous ablation for the treatment of venous insufficiency: Joint statement of The American Venous Forum and The Society of Interventional Radiology. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 46(3), 582–589.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Lurie, F., Creton, D., Eklof, B., Kabnick, L. S., Kistner, R. L., Pichot, O., et al. (2005). Prospective randomised study of endovenous radiofrequency obliteration (closure) versus ligation and vein stripping (EVOLVeS): Two-year follow-up. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 29(1), 67–73.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Testa, M. A. (2000). Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: Issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II166–II174.PubMed
5.
Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 459–468.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Erickson, P. (2000). Assessment of the evaluative properties of health status instruments. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II95–II99.PubMed
7.
Brozek, J. L., Guyatt, G. H., Heels-Ansdell, D., Degl’Innocenti, A., Armstrong, D., Fallone, C. A., et al. (2009). Specific HRQL instruments and symptom scores were more responsive than preference-based generic instruments in patients with GERD. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(1), 102–110.PubMedCrossRef
8.
de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1033–1039.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Peat, G., Jordan, K. P., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Browne, J. P., van der Meulen, J. H., Lewsey, J. D., Lamping, D. L., & Black, N. J. (2010). Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8), 865–874.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2004). An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(11), 1153–1160.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(8), 869–879.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Eklöf, B., Rutherford, R. B., Bergan, J. J., Carpentier, P. H., Gloviczki, P., Kistner, R. L., et al. (2004). Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: Consensus statement. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 40(6), 1248–1252.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(9), 861–873.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 900–908.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R., & Sprangers, M. A. (2009). Formal definitions of measurement bias and explanation bias clarify measurement and conceptual perspectives on response shift. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(11), 1126–1137.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD, 2(1), 63–67.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Maurins, U., Hoffmann, B. H., Lösch, C., Jöckel, K. H., Rabe, E., & Pannier, F. (2008). Distribution and prevalence of reflux in the superficial and deep venous system in the general population–results from the Bonn Vein Study, Germany. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 48(3), 680–687.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lamping, D. L., Schroter, S., Kurz, X., Kahn, S. R., & Abenhaim, L. (2003). Evaluation of outcomes in chronic venous disorders of the leg: Development of a scientifically rigorous, patient-reported measure of symptoms and quality of life. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 37(2), 410–419.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
In prospective study using Specific Quality of Life & Outcomes Response-Venous (SQOR-V) questionnaire the recall bias had the same magnitude as the minimally important difference
Auteurs
Fedor Lurie
Robert L. Kistner
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2011
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2011
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9910-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2011

What do people include when they self-rate their health? Differential associations according to health status in community-dwelling older adults

Modification of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in Central China

  • Open Access
  • Brief Communication

Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in performance and health-related quality of life scores of multiple sclerosis patients

  • Open Access

Oral-health-related quality of life in schoolchildren in an endemic fluorosis area of Mexico

Application of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) among Taiwanese elderly

  • Brief Communication

Impaired health status and care dependency in patients with advanced COPD or chronic heart failure

  • Open Access