JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Specific HRQL instruments and symptom scores were more responsive than preference-based generic instruments in patients with GERD.

OBJECTIVE: To determine relative responsiveness of disease-specific and generic preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We compared standardized response means (SRM) of disease-specific and preference-based instruments in 217 outpatients with GERD.

RESULTS: Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia and symptom scores were responsive across all domains, whereas global rating of change and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD only in single domains. The most responsive were Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia food/drink problems (SRM: 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.76-2.03) and vitality (SRM: 1.68, 95% CI 1.55-1.82) domains, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD workdays with reflux symptoms (SRM: 2.02, 95% CI 1.84-2.19), symptoms of heartburn (SRM: 1.83, 95% CI 1.69-1.96) and acid reflux (SRM: 1.48, 95% CI 1.35-1.62), and global rating of change in stomach problems (SRM: 2.19, 95% CI 2.05-2.32). The least responsive were Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD domains related to hours absent at work (SRM: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.38), reduced productivity at work (SRM: 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.83) and during other activities (SRM: 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.92), as well as emotional global rating of change (SRM: 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.85), and the standard gamble (SRM: 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.48), which was less responsive than the feeling thermometer (SRM: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GERD, disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments and symptom scores showed greater responsiveness than preference-based generic instruments. The feeling thermometer proved more responsive than the standard gamble.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app