Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments

被引:64
|
作者
Coon, Cheryl D. [1 ]
Cappelleri, Joseph C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Outcometrix, Tucson, AZ 85716 USA
[2] Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT 06340 USA
关键词
patient-reported outcome; clinically important difference; clinically important responder; minimal important difference; standard setting; mixed methods; conjoint analysis; clinical outcome assessment; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES; RESPONSIVENESS;
D O I
10.1177/2168479015622667
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments is a key aspect of instrument development. Without interpretation guidelines, the clinical meaning of significant improvements observed within a treatment group cannot be ascertained. While the field has contemplated this topic for several decades, there remains inconsistency in terminology, methods, and application. Careful selection of methods can result in determining when change is meaningful, but researchers must keep an open mind to the methods that best fit their study and instrument. In many cases, anchor-based methods are appropriate, but the statistical model that evaluates them should be defensible (eg, linear regression, repeated-measures modeling, logistic regression). Sometimes, researchers must entertain the use of novel methods that may be more appropriate for their planned studies and instrument (eg, standard setting, exit interviews, conjoint analysis). The selection of the method is best supported by clear, transparent communication with the regulatory agency to ensure that the method can support its goals.
引用
收藏
页码:22 / 29
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments
    Cheryl D. Coon
    Joseph C. Cappelleri
    [J]. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2016, 50 : 22 - 29
  • [2] INTERPRETING SCORES ON THREE COPD PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES
    McKenna, S. P.
    Twiss, J.
    Meads, D. M.
    Revicki, D.
    Pokrzywinski, R.
    Gale, R.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2008, 11 (06) : A348 - A348
  • [3] INTERPRETING SCORES ON THREE PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES FOR ASTHMA
    Meads, D. M.
    Twiss, J.
    McKenna, S. P.
    Revicki, D.
    Pokrzywinski, R.
    Gale, R.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2008, 11 (06) : A454 - A454
  • [4] Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures
    K. W. Wyrwich
    J. M. Norquist
    W. R. Lenderking
    S. Acaster
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2013, 22 : 475 - 483
  • [5] Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures
    Wyrwich, K. W.
    Norquist, J. M.
    Lenderking, W. R.
    Acaster, S.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2013, 22 (03) : 475 - 483
  • [6] Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores
    Trigg, Andrew
    Griffiths, Philip
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2021, 30 (10) : 2755 - 2764
  • [7] Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores
    Andrew Trigg
    Pip Griffiths
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2021, 30 : 2755 - 2764
  • [8] Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Scores: Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease as a Use Case
    Schuchard, Julia
    Carle, Adam C.
    Kappelman, Michael D.
    Tucker, Carole A.
    Forrest, Christopher B.
    [J]. ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS, 2022, 22 (08) : 1520 - 1528
  • [9] Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Heart Failure
    Psotka, Mitchell A.
    Teerlink, John R.
    [J]. JACC-HEART FAILURE, 2018, 6 (07) : 561 - 563
  • [10] Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Spine Surgery
    Guzman, Javier Z.
    Cutler, Holt S.
    Connolly, James
    Skovrlj, Branko
    Mroz, Thomas E.
    Riew, K. Daniel
    Cho, Samuel K.
    [J]. SPINE, 2016, 41 (05) : 429 - 437