Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments

被引:0
作者
Cheryl D. Coon
Joseph C. Cappelleri
机构
[1] Outcometrix,
[2] Pfizer Inc,undefined
来源
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science | 2016年 / 50卷
关键词
patient-reported outcome; clinically important difference; clinically important responder; minimal important difference; standard setting; mixed methods; conjoint analysis; clinical outcome assessment;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
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:7
相关论文
共 114 条
[1]  
Jaeschke R(1989)Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 407-415
[2]  
Singer J(1993)Interpretation of quality of life changes Qual Life Res 2 221-226
[3]  
Guyatt GH(2002)Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life Mayo Clin Proc 77 384-392
[4]  
Lydick E(2006)Draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims Fed Regist 71 5862-5863
[5]  
Epstein R(1994)Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol 47 81-87
[6]  
Cella D(2009)Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims Fed Regist 74 65132-65133
[7]  
Bullinger M(2013)Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures Qual Life Res 22 475-483
[8]  
Scott C(2013)Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes Stat Methods Med Res 23 460-483
[9]  
Barofsky I(2011)A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11 171-184
[10]  
Juniper EF(2004)A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods Value Health 7 93-104