English, Article edition: Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health Status Measures: A General Approach with Illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II Greg Samsa; David Edelman; Margaret L. Rothman; ...

User activity

Share to:
 
Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/94270
Physical Description
  • article
Language
  • English

Edition details

Title
  • Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health Status Measures: A General Approach with Illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II
Author
  • Greg Samsa
  • David Edelman
  • Margaret L. Rothman
  • G. Rhys Williams
  • Joseph Lipscomb
  • David Matchar
Physical Description
  • article
Notes
  • The objective of this article was to describe and illustrate a comprehensive approach for estimating clinically important differences (CIDs) in health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL). A literature review and pilot study were conducted to determine whether effect size-based benchmarks are consistent with CIDs obtained from other approaches. CIDs may be estimated based primarily upon effect sizes, supplemented by more traditional anchor-based methods of benchmarking (i.e. direct, cross-sectional or longitudinal approaches). A literature review of articles discussing CIDs provided comparative data on effect sizes for various chronic conditions. A pilot study was then conducted to estimate the minimum CID of the Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark II, and to compare the observed between-group differences observed in a recent randomised trial of an acute stroke intervention with this benchmark. The use of standardised effect size benchmarks has a number of advantages - for example, effect sizes are efficient, widely accepted outside HR-QOL, and have well accepted benchmarks based upon external anchors. In addition, our literature review and pilot study suggest that effect size-based CID benchmarks are similar to those which would be obtained using more traditional methods. For most HR-QOL instruments, we do not know the changes in score which constitute CIDs of various magnitudes. This makes interpretation of HR-QOL results from clinical trials difficult, and having a benchmarking process which is relatively straightforward would be highly desirable.
  • Pharmacoeconomics, Quality-of-life, Quality-of-life-rating-scales, Health-status
  • RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:15:y:1999:i:2:p:141-155
Language
  • English
Contributed by
OAIster

Get this edition

  • Set up My libraries

    How do I set up "My libraries"?

    In order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen.

  • All (1)
  • Unknown (1)
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.

User activity


e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this edition

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this version

Add a comment