We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome.
Medical Care 1998 April
OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the relative responsiveness to change of generic versus disease-specific and unweighted versus weighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
METHODS: Data were obtained from 196 subjects followed in a prospective community-based cohort study in Maine who underwent carpal tunnel release (The Maine Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Study). Patients were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery. The disease-specific, unweighted severity score was derived from the validated Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Assessment Questionnaire. Patients were asked to rate the importance of each symptom included in the severity score. Each severity question was weighted by its importance, creating a disease-specific weighted score. Generic instruments were the SF-36, SF-12, and a Quality of Life Rating Scale. Sensitivity to change was calculated with the standardized response mean (SRM, mean change/standard deviation of change) as well as the effect size (ES, mean change/standard deviation of baseline values). The ability of the instruments to distinguish clinically important differences was assessed by correlating the changes in scores with global ratings on satisfaction and perceived improvement as external criteria.
RESULTS: The disease-specific weighted score (SRM: 1.56, ES: 1.99) was more responsive than the unweighted score (SRM: 1.36, ES: 1.57). The Quality of Life Rating Scale, SF-36, and SF-12 subscales were less sensitive to change, with standardized response means and effect sizes that ranged from -0.23 to 0.88. The ability to distinguish clinically important differences was higher for the two disease-specific scales. The coefficients of correlation with the external criteria ranged from 0.50 to 0.56 for the unweighted score and 0.56 to 0.62 for the weighted score and were significantly stronger than the correlations between external measures and the most responsive subscale of the SF-36 (Bodily Pain subscale, r = 0.36). The SF-12 health survey performed as well as the SF-36 in term of responsiveness and ability to distinguish clinically important change.
CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific measures were superior to generic measures in capturing clinical change after carpal tunnel release, and a weighted score was slightly more responsive than the unweighted score. The SF-12 showed comparable psychometric properties compared with the longer 36-item Short-Form Survey.
METHODS: Data were obtained from 196 subjects followed in a prospective community-based cohort study in Maine who underwent carpal tunnel release (The Maine Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Study). Patients were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery. The disease-specific, unweighted severity score was derived from the validated Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Assessment Questionnaire. Patients were asked to rate the importance of each symptom included in the severity score. Each severity question was weighted by its importance, creating a disease-specific weighted score. Generic instruments were the SF-36, SF-12, and a Quality of Life Rating Scale. Sensitivity to change was calculated with the standardized response mean (SRM, mean change/standard deviation of change) as well as the effect size (ES, mean change/standard deviation of baseline values). The ability of the instruments to distinguish clinically important differences was assessed by correlating the changes in scores with global ratings on satisfaction and perceived improvement as external criteria.
RESULTS: The disease-specific weighted score (SRM: 1.56, ES: 1.99) was more responsive than the unweighted score (SRM: 1.36, ES: 1.57). The Quality of Life Rating Scale, SF-36, and SF-12 subscales were less sensitive to change, with standardized response means and effect sizes that ranged from -0.23 to 0.88. The ability to distinguish clinically important differences was higher for the two disease-specific scales. The coefficients of correlation with the external criteria ranged from 0.50 to 0.56 for the unweighted score and 0.56 to 0.62 for the weighted score and were significantly stronger than the correlations between external measures and the most responsive subscale of the SF-36 (Bodily Pain subscale, r = 0.36). The SF-12 health survey performed as well as the SF-36 in term of responsiveness and ability to distinguish clinically important change.
CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific measures were superior to generic measures in capturing clinical change after carpal tunnel release, and a weighted score was slightly more responsive than the unweighted score. The SF-12 showed comparable psychometric properties compared with the longer 36-item Short-Form Survey.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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
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