Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws
Boeken
Tijdschriften
E-learning
Web-tv
Video
Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2014

01-06-2014

Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?

Auteurs: Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Asgeir S. Jakola, Ole Solheim

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2014

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

Purpose

To evaluate the responsiveness of EQ-5D 3L in patients undergoing intracranial glioma surgery and estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Materials and methods

EQ-5D 3L index values from 164 patients who underwent glioma surgery in the period 2007–2012 were analysed. Responsiveness and MCID were estimated using a combination of distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Karnofsky performance status served as an anchor.

Results

Patients who improved functionally did not report significantly higher EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a standardized response mean (SRM) of 0.04 (p = 0.13). Patients who deteriorated functionally reported significantly lower EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a SRM of 0.72 (p < 0.001). With different approaches, we determined a range of MCID values from 0.13 to 0.15.

Conclusions

EQ-5D 3L is responsive to changes when glioma patients are deteriorating functionally after surgery but not responsive when the patients are improving. The MCID values for EQ-5D 3L in glioma surgery seem higher than reported MCID values for other types of cancers.
vorige artikel Testing gender invariance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale using the classical approach and Bayesian approach
volgende artikel Relationship of EQ-5D quality of life with the presence of co-morbidity and extra-articular features in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Literatuur
1.
Cbtrus (2012). Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2004– 2008. CBTRUS Statistical Report 2012.
2.
Stummer, W., Reulen, H. J., Meinel, T., Pichlmeier, U., Schumacher, W., Tonn, J. C., et al. (2008). Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: Identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery, 62, 564–576. PubMedCrossRef
3.
Smith, J. S., Chang, E. F., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Prados, M. D., Cha, S., et al. (2008). Role of extent of resection in the long-term outcome of low-grade hemispheric gliomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 1338–1345. PubMedCrossRef
4.
Lacroix, M., Abi-Said, D., Fourney, D. R., Gokaslan, Z. L., Shi, W., Demonte, F., et al. (2001). A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. Journal of Neurosurgery, 95, 190–198. PubMedCrossRef
5.
Jakola, A. S., Myrmel, K. S., Kloster, R., Torp, S. H., Lindal, S., Unsgard, G., et al. (2012). Comparison of a strategy favoring early surgical resection vs a strategy favoring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas. JAMA, 308, 1881–1888. PubMedCrossRef
6.
Anonymous. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol group. Health policy, 16, 199–208. CrossRef
7.
Jakola, A. S., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Quality of life in patients with intracranial gliomas: The impact of modern image-guided surgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 114, 1622–1630. PubMedCrossRef
8.
Jakola, A. S., Gulati, S., Weber, C., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Postoperative deterioration in health related quality of life as predictor for survival in patients with glioblastoma: A prospective study. PLoS ONE, 6, e28592. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. West Sussex, England: Wiley
10.
Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178. PubMedCrossRef
11.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383. PubMedCrossRef
12.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Al, E. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109. PubMedCrossRef
13.
Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Colombia University Press
14.
Nord, E. (1991). EuroQol: Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy, 18, 25–36. PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
Frappaz, D., Chinot, O., Bataillard, A., Ben Hassel, M., Capelle, L., Chanalet, S., et al. (2003). Summary version of the standards, options and recommendations for the management of adult patients with intracranial glioma (2002). British Journal of Cancer, 89(Suppl 1), S73–S83. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Schag, C. C., Heinrich, R. L., & Ganz, P. A. (1984). Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and guidelines. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2, 187–193. PubMed
18.
WMA. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki. WMA: Ferney-Voltaire.
19.
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, 459–468. PubMedCrossRef
20.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hilsdale NJ.
21.
Mchorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307. PubMedCrossRef
22.
Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1205–1216. PubMedCrossRef
23.
Olerud, P., Tidermark, J., Ponzer, S., Ahrengart, L., & Bergstrom, G. (2011). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 20, 1200–1206. PubMedCrossRef
24.
Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2010). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 565–569. PubMedCrossRef
25.
Konig, H. H., Born, A., Gunther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
Kvam, A. K., Fayers, P. M., & Wisloff, F. (2011). Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. European Journal of Haematology, 87, 330–337. PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kimman, M. L., Dirksen, C. D., Lambin, P., & Boersma, L. J. (2009). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 11. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
Tidermark, J., Bergstrom, G., Svensson, O., Tornkvist, H., & Ponzer, S. (2003). Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1069–1079. PubMedCrossRef
29.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology (Oxford), 41, 1380–1387. CrossRef
30.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Lall, R., Smith, J. F., & Lamb, S. E. (2008). EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 17, 475–483. PubMedCrossRef
31.
Burton, M., Walters, S. J., Saleh, M., & Brazier, J. E. (2012). An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1731–1743. PubMedCrossRef
32.
Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121. PubMedCrossRef
33.
Chang, E. F., Potts, M. B., Keles, G. E., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Barbaro, N. M., et al. (2008). Seizure characteristics and control following resection in 332 patients with low-grade gliomas. Journal of Neurosurgery, 108, 227–235. PubMedCrossRef
34.
Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 70. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? PharmacoEconomics, 18, 419–423. PubMedCrossRef
36.
Maringwa, J., Quinten, C., King, M., Ringash, J., Osoba, D., Coens, C., et al. (2011). Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 22, 2107–2112. PubMedCrossRef
37.
Sprangers, M. A., Te Velde, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1999). The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European organization for research and treatment of cancer study group on quality of life. European Journal of Cancer, 35, 238–247. PubMedCrossRef
38.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. PubMedCrossRef
39.
Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87. PubMedCrossRef
40.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
41.
Taphoorn, M. J., Sizoo, E. M., & Bottomley, A. (2010). Review on quality of life issues in patients with primary brain tumors. Oncologist, 15, 618–626. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Bottomley, A., Flechtner, H., Efficace, F., Vanvoorden, V., Coens, C., Therasse, P., et al. (2005). Health related quality of life outcomes in cancer clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 1697–1709. PubMedCrossRef
43.
Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Sneeuw, K., Hsu, M. A., Yung, W. K., et al. (1996). The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 5, 139–150. PubMedCrossRef
44.
Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G., O′Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
45.
Slevin, M. L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., & Gregory, W. M. (1988). Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? British Journal of Cancer, 57, 109–112. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
46.
Fisch, M. J., Titzer, M. L., Kristeller, J. L., Shen, J., Loehrer, P. J., Jung, S. H., et al. (2003). Assessment of quality of life in outpatients with advanced cancer: The accuracy of clinician estimations and the relevance of spiritual well-being–a Hoosier oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 2754–2759. PubMedCrossRef
47.
Bailey, C. S., Fehlings, M. G., Rampersaud, Y. R., Hall, H., Wai, E. K., & Fisher, C. G. (2011). Industry and evidence-based medicine: Believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 54, 321–326. PubMedCentralCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?
Auteurs
Lisa Millgård Sagberg
Asgeir S. Jakola
Ole Solheim
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0593-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2014

Quality of Life Research 5/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The impact of influenza-like illness in young children on their parents: a quality of life survey

OriginalPaper

Impact of hypoalphalipoproteinemia on quality of life in Taiwanese women with central obesity

OriginalPaper

Quality of life and related factors: a questionnaire survey of older people living alone in Mainland China

OriginalPaper

Work stress and quality of life in persons with disabilities from four European countries: the case of spinal cord injury

OriginalPaper

Role of global stress in the health-related quality of life of caregivers: evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin

OriginalPaper

Effect of aerobic exercise on quality of life in population with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes: a single blind, randomized controlled trial