The Experts below are selected from a list of 441417 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
James H Roth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
responsiveness of the Short Form 36 disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire patient rated wrist evaluation and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), 2000Co-Authors: Joy C Macdermid, Allan Donner, Robert S Richards, Nicolas Bellamy, James H RothAbstract:We evaluated the responsiveness of patient questionnaires and physical testing in the assessment of recovery after distal radius fracture. Patients (n = 59) were assessed at their baseline clinic visit and again 3 and 6 months after injury. At each visit patients completed a Short Form-36, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE). At 3 and 6 months grip strength, range of motion, and dexterity were analyzed. Standardized response means (SRM) and effects sizes were calculated to indicate responsiveness. The PRWE was the most responsive. Both the PRWE (SRM = 2.27) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (SRM = 2.01) questionnaire were more responsive than the Short Form-36 (SRM = 0.92). The physical component summary score of the Short Form-36 was similar to that of the physical component subscales. Questionnaires were highly responsive during the 0- to 3-month time period when physical testing could not be perFormed. Of the physical tests, grip strength was most responsive, followed by range of motion. Responsive patient-rating scales and physical perFormance evaluations can assist with outcome evaluation of patients with distal radius fracture.
-
responsiveness of the Short Form 36 disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire patient rated wrist evaluation and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), 2000Co-Authors: Joy C Macdermid, Allan Donner, Robert S Richards, Nicolas Bellamy, James H RothAbstract:Abstract We evaluated the responsiveness of patient questionnaires and physical testing in the assessment of recovery after distal radius fracture. Patients (n = 59) were assessed at their baseline clinic visit and again 3 and 6 months after injury. At each visit patients completed a Short Form-36, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE). At 3 and 6 months grip strength, range of motion, and dexterity were analyzed. Standardized response means (SRM) and effects sizes were calculated to indicate responsiveness. The PRWE was the most responsive. Both the PRWE (SRM = 2.27) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (SRM = 2.01) questionnaire were more responsive than the Short Form-36 (SRM = 0.92). The physical component summary score of the Short Form-36 was similar to that of the physical component subscales. Questionnaires were highly responsive during the 0- to 3-month time period when physical testing could not be perFormed. Of the physical tests, grip strength was most responsive, followed by range of motion. Responsive patient-rating scales and physical perFormance evaluations can assist with outcome evaluation of patients with distal radius fracture. (J Hand Surg 2000;25A:330–340. Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand).
Navneet S Majhail - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sensitivity of changes in chronic graft- versus -host disease activity to changes in patient-reported quality of life: results from the Chronic Graft- versus -Host Disease Consortium
Haematologica, 2011Co-Authors: Joseph Pidala, Steven Z. Pavletic, Xiaoyu Chai, Georgia Boyce Vogelsang, Corey Cutler, Brenda F. Kurland, Daniel J Weisdorf, Navneet S MajhailAbstract:Background The 2005 National Institute of Health Chronic Graft- versus -Host Disease Consensus Conference recommended collection of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials on chronic graft- versus -host disease. We assessed whether changes in chronic graft- versus -host disease severity, determined using National Institute of Health criteria, clinicians’ assessment or patients’ self-evaluation, correlated with patient-reported quality of life as measured by the Short Form-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) instruments. Design and Methods Three-hundred and thirty-six adult patients (median age 52 years; range, 19 – 79) with chronic graft- versus -host disease from six transplant centers contributed baseline and follow-up data (from 936 visits overall). Results While the majority of the patients had stable chronic graft- versus -host disease, improvement or worsening was noted in approximately 40% of follow-up visits. Multivariable analysis demonstrated no association between change in chronic graft- versus -host disease severity evaluated by National Institute of Health criteria and change in quality of life, while clinician-reported changes in severity were associated with changes in some quality of life measures. Patient-reported changes in the severity of chronic graft- versus -host disease were associated with changes in all quality of life measures. Comparison of the Short Form-36 and the FACT-BMT suggested that the data collected in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General (FACT-G) core survey are sufficient without the need for the Short Form-36 or the FACT–BMT subscale. Conclusions We conclude that serial National Institute of Health and clinician-reported chronic graft- versus -host disease severity assessments cannot substitute for patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. Collection of just the FACT-G instead of the Short Form-36 and the full FACT-BMT will decrease respondent burden without compromising quality of life assessment.
Joy C Macdermid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
responsiveness of the Short Form 36 disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire patient rated wrist evaluation and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), 2000Co-Authors: Joy C Macdermid, Allan Donner, Robert S Richards, Nicolas Bellamy, James H RothAbstract:We evaluated the responsiveness of patient questionnaires and physical testing in the assessment of recovery after distal radius fracture. Patients (n = 59) were assessed at their baseline clinic visit and again 3 and 6 months after injury. At each visit patients completed a Short Form-36, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE). At 3 and 6 months grip strength, range of motion, and dexterity were analyzed. Standardized response means (SRM) and effects sizes were calculated to indicate responsiveness. The PRWE was the most responsive. Both the PRWE (SRM = 2.27) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (SRM = 2.01) questionnaire were more responsive than the Short Form-36 (SRM = 0.92). The physical component summary score of the Short Form-36 was similar to that of the physical component subscales. Questionnaires were highly responsive during the 0- to 3-month time period when physical testing could not be perFormed. Of the physical tests, grip strength was most responsive, followed by range of motion. Responsive patient-rating scales and physical perFormance evaluations can assist with outcome evaluation of patients with distal radius fracture.
-
responsiveness of the Short Form 36 disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire patient rated wrist evaluation and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), 2000Co-Authors: Joy C Macdermid, Allan Donner, Robert S Richards, Nicolas Bellamy, James H RothAbstract:Abstract We evaluated the responsiveness of patient questionnaires and physical testing in the assessment of recovery after distal radius fracture. Patients (n = 59) were assessed at their baseline clinic visit and again 3 and 6 months after injury. At each visit patients completed a Short Form-36, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE). At 3 and 6 months grip strength, range of motion, and dexterity were analyzed. Standardized response means (SRM) and effects sizes were calculated to indicate responsiveness. The PRWE was the most responsive. Both the PRWE (SRM = 2.27) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (SRM = 2.01) questionnaire were more responsive than the Short Form-36 (SRM = 0.92). The physical component summary score of the Short Form-36 was similar to that of the physical component subscales. Questionnaires were highly responsive during the 0- to 3-month time period when physical testing could not be perFormed. Of the physical tests, grip strength was most responsive, followed by range of motion. Responsive patient-rating scales and physical perFormance evaluations can assist with outcome evaluation of patients with distal radius fracture. (J Hand Surg 2000;25A:330–340. Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand).
Leah Y Carreon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
neck disability index Short Form 36 physical component summary and pain scales for neck and arm pain the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion
The Spine Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Leah Y Carreon, Mitchell J Campbell, Steven D Glassman, Paul A AndersonAbstract:Abstract Background Context The Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS), and pain scales for arm and neck pain are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness after cervical spine surgery. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a threshold of improvement that is clinically relevant to the patient. However, the true goal is to provide the patient with a substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Purpose This study determines the MCID and SCB using common anchor-based methods for NDI, PCS, and pain scales for arm and neck pain in patients undergoing cervical spine fusion for degenerative disorders. Study Design/Setting The study setting is a longitudinal cohort in a multisurgeon spine specialty clinic. Patient sample The sample comprises 505 patients who underwent a cervical fusion for degenerative spine conditions and who have prospectively collected outcome scores with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Outcome Measures The outcome measures of the study were NDI, SF-36, and numeric rating scales for arm and neck pain. Methods The MCID and SCB values for NDI, PCS, and pain scales for arm and neck pain were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Health Transition Item of the SF-36 as an anchor. The Health Transition Item asks a patient “Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now?” with answers ranging from “Much Better,” “Somewhat Better,” “About the Same,” “Somewhat Worse,” to “Much Worse.” An ROC curve was constructed for each measure. The ROC curve–derived MCID was the change score with equal sensitivity and specificity to distinguish the “Somewhat Better” from the “About the Same” patients. The ROC curve–derived SCB was the change score with equal sensitivity and specificity to distinguish the “Much Better” from the “Somewhat Better” patients. Distribution-based methods including the standard error of the mean and the minimum detectable change were also used to calculate MCID. Results The calculated MCID is 7.5 for the NDI, 4.1 for SF-36 PCS, and 2.5 for arm and neck pain. The calculated SCB is 9.5 for the NDI, 6.5 for SF-36 PCS, and 3.5 for arm and neck pain. Conclusions Patients with an eight-point decrease in NDI, a 4.1-point increase in PCS, and a three-point decrease in arm or neck pain can detect a minimally clinically important change. Patients with a 10-point decrease in NDI, a 6.5-point increase in PCS, and a four-point decrease in arm or neck pain can detect an SCB after cervical spine fusion.
-
fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease a systematic review of oswestry disability index and mos Short Form 36 outcomes
The Spine Journal, 2008Co-Authors: Leah Y Carreon, Steven D Glassman, Jennifer M HowardAbstract:Abstract Background context Although numerous studies have been published, controversy still exists regarding fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Definite conclusions are difficult to draw because of differences in patient inclusion criteria, fusion technique, nonoperative treatment regimen, and clinical outcome measures used to determine success. Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate lumbar fusion and nonsurgical interventions for various degenerative spine disorders using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as a primary outcome measure in a systematic review. A secondary objective was to determine whether there is a difference in clinical outcomes based on the specific diagnosis. Study design/setting Systematic review. Patient sample Patients with low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration and older than 18 years, with prospectively collected ODI scores and at least a 12-month follow-up. Outcome measures ODI and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Methods A MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, and Cochrane database search was done using the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Proceedings from annual meetings of various spine societies and reference lists from review articles and retrieved articles were evaluated for possible inclusion. Criteria for inclusion were prospective randomized clinical trials in patients with low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration and older than 18 years; with prospectively collected ODI scores and at least a 12-month follow-up. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the van Tulder criteria. Data extracted from each study included demographics, study design, diagnosis, baseline and change in ODI, and baseline and change in SF-36 Physical Composite Score (PCS). The data were pooled and analyzed based on the primary reported inclusion diagnosis: degenerative disc disease (DDD), chronic low back pain (CLBP), and spondylolisthesis; and treatment: fusion (unspecified, posterior, anterior, combined) and nonsurgical. Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The distribution of sex and smokers was similar across diagnoses and treatments. Patients with spondylolisthesis were older than patients with DDD and CLBP. Patients with spondylolisthesis had the greatest ODI improvement followed by patients with DDD and CLBP. The three fusion types produced similar amounts of improvement in ODI. Nonsurgical patients did not improve as much but had a lower baseline ODI. Improvements in the SF-36 PCS were fairly consistent across diagnostic groups and treatment types. Conclusions Substantial improvement can be expected in patients treated with fusion, regardless of technique, when an established indication such as spondylolisthesis or DDD exists. CLBP patients are less disabled and experience less improvement.
-
mos Short Form 36 and oswestry disability index outcomes in lumbar fusion a multicenter experience
The Spine Journal, 2006Co-Authors: Steven D Glassman, Matthew F Gornet, Charles L Branch, David W Polly, John Peloza, James D Schwender, Leah Y CarreonAbstract:Abstract Background context Patient-based quality of life scales have become a critical element of post-op assessment for lumbar fusion surgery. The most extensive outcomes data have been generated through FDA-regulated IDE trials for new technologies, which produce excellent data but are constrained by strict enrollment criteria and limited indications. This raises a question as to whether the excellent results seen in these IDE trials can be reproduced in standard clinical practice. Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze surgical results based upon standardized outcome tools, across a spectrum of interventions, for one- and two-level lumbar spine fusion procedures. Design/setting This study is a retrospective review of prospectively collected patient based outcomes data. Patient sample Four hundred ninety-seven patients, who underwent 1- or 2-level lumbar spine fusion at five participating spine centers, utilizing a variety of surgical techniques. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, surgical and clinical outcome data. At a minimum, patients had pre-op and one year post-op SF-36 data. In many cases two-year post-op SF-36 data and concomitant Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data was available. Outcome measures SF36 and ODI. Methods The patient population included 270 females and 227 males, with a mean age of 47 years. Sixty-five percent (N=324) had one level fusions and 35% (N=173) had two level fusions. Demographic data collected included age, gender, BMI, surgical history, smoking history and work status. Data was analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results SF-36 Physical Composite Score (PCS) improved a mean 9.9 points at one year post-op and 9.5 points at two years post-op. ODI improved a mean 22.2 points at one year post-op and 22.1 points at two years post-op. SF-36 PCS data for surgical approach subgroups revealed greater improvement (p=.03) in the ALIF group as compared to the PSF, PLIF/TLIF, or 360° fusion groups (12.6 points vs. 8.8, 9.3, 8.4 points) at 1 year post-op. At 2 years post-op, there was greater improvement (p=.02) in the ALIF and PSF groups as compared to the PLIF/TLIF and 360° fusion groups (13.8 and 11.2 points vs. 7.7 and 6.3 points). SF-36 PCS data demonstrated similar baseline scores for patients with and without prior decompression, but a significantly greater rate of improvement (11.3 vs. 7.2 points, p=.002) for patients without prior lumbar decompression surgery. The ODI data indicated a significantly greater disability at baseline in the prior decompression group, with greater improvement (21.7 vs. 17.5 points) in patients without prior surgery. Conclusions This study documents improved outcomes, based on SF-36 and ODI scores, in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for one and two level degenerative disc disease. The findings also demonstrate efficacy for all of the surgical techniques studied, suggesting that surgeons can appropriately select the surgical strategy with which they are most adept.
John E Ware - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validation testing of a three component model of Short Form 36 scores
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011Co-Authors: Yoshimi Suzukamo, Shunichi Fukuhara, Joseph Green, Mark Kosinski, Barbara Gandek, John E WareAbstract:Abstract Objective The two-component factor structure underlying Short Form-36 (SF-36) summary scores may not be valid worldwide. We studied a three-component model of SF-36 scores in Japan. Study Design and Setting The SF-36 scores came from representative samples of the population of Japan. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used. The two-component model gave physical component summary (PCS) scores and mental component summary (MCS) scores. The three-component model gave scores on the PCS, the MCS, and also on the third component, which we call the role component summary (RCS) score. These were evaluated with external criteria. Results In the three-component model, the RCS was strongly associated with the role-physical, social functioning, and role-emotional subscales, whereas the PCS and MCS were associated with the physical functioning and mental health subscales, as expected. The goodness-of-fit index was 0.945 for the three-component model and 0.935 for the two-component model. The PCS discriminated between groups stratified by comorbid conditions, and the MCS discriminated between groups stratified by psychological depression. Absence from work was associated with both PCS and RCS. Conclusion The three-component model is better than the two-component model, and it provides more useful PCS and MCS scores. Criteria for validation testing of the RCS are needed.
-
construction and validation of an alternate Form general mental health scale for the medical outcomes study Short Form 36 item health survey
Medical Care, 1995Co-Authors: Colleen A Mchorney, John E WareAbstract:Alternate-Form health measures are useful for clinical trials or health services research requiring repeated administrations over a Short interval of time. Further, by using alternate-Form methodology, they can be utilized to estimate score reliability. Data from the Medical Outcomes Study were used to evaluate five alternate Forms of the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) general mental health scale (MHI-5). Well-established psychometric criteria were used to select the best alternate Form and to estimate the reliability of the MHI-5 using the alternate-Form methodology. Although a considerable degree of comparability across the five alternate Forms was observed for criteria pertaining to estimates of item-internal consistency and reliability, distributional characteristics of scales, tests of empirical validity, and score equivalence at the individual level, we recommend one alternate Form that satisfied all evaluation criteria and did so better than any other alternate Form. Using the alternate-Form methodology of estimating reliability, results suggest that the internal-consistency method underestimates the reliability of the MHI-5 by 3%. The methodology presented here should prove useful to others interested in constructing and evaluating alternate Forms, and the alternate Form recommended here (MHI-5AF) should prove useful across many health status assessment applications.
-
construction and validation of an alternate Form general mental health scale for the medical outcomes study Short Form 36 item health survey
Medical Care, 1995Co-Authors: Colleen A Mchorney, John E WareAbstract:Alternate-Form health measures are useful for clinical trials or health services research requiring repeated administrations over a Short interval of time. Further, by using alternate-Form methodology, they can be utilized to estimate score reliability. Data from the Medical Outcomes Study were used
