Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Jan;56(1):52-60.

Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, University Campus, London Health Sciences Centre, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5. swiebe@uwo.ca

Abstract

We assessed the relative responsiveness of generic and specific quality of life instruments in 43 randomized controlled trials that compared head-to-head 31 generic and 84 specific instruments. Using weighted effect size as the metric of responsiveness, we assessed the impact of instrument type, disease category, and magnitude of underlying therapeutic effect on responsiveness, and assessed the responsiveness of specific instruments relative to the corresponding domains of generic measures. In studies with a nonzero therapeutic effect, specific instruments (mean = 0.57) were significantly more responsive than generic instruments (mean = 0.39, P =.01), and than the corresponding domains of generic instruments (mean = 0.40, P =.03). Studies with low, medium, and high therapeutic effects showed a corresponding gradation in responsiveness differences between specific and generic instruments. We conclude that, overall, specific instruments are more responsive than generic tools, and that investigators may come to misleading conclusions about relative instrument responsiveness if they include studies in which the magnitude of the underlying therapeutic effect is zero.

PMID:
12589870
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center