MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020
Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) did not improve responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes on quality of life.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boesen Victor Brun, Bjorner Jakob Bue, Groenvold Morgens, Cramon Per Karkov, Rasmussen Aase Krogh, Watt Torquil, Feldt-Rasmussen Ulla
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines recommend questionnaires with short recall. We compare responsiveness of ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and retrospective assessments of thyroid-related quality of life.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Patients with newly diagnosed thyrotoxicosis completed retrospective Thyroid-related Patient-Reported Outcome measures (ThyPROs) with 4-week and 1-week recall, respectively, and three daily EMAs for 4 weeks at time of inclusion and again after treatment (N = 115). Magnitude of change and statistical power (F-test statistics) were compared. Two designs were applied to the same data: Design 1 mimicked the practical realities of clinical trials by comparing 4-week recall ThyPRO administered at time of inclusion with EMA initiated at time of inclusion and collected prospectively for 1 week, thus not covering the same time frame or duration. Design 2 compared assessments covering the same 4 weeks after inclusion.
RESULTS: Design 1: the estimated change and statistical power were significantly larger for 4-week ThyPRO compared with EMAs. Design 2: retrospective assessments and EMAs had comparable change and power. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased the statistical power.
CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimal time frame for evaluation proved crucial for responsiveness. EMAs did not provide higher responsiveness than retrospective measures in either design. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased statistical power.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Patients with newly diagnosed thyrotoxicosis completed retrospective Thyroid-related Patient-Reported Outcome measures (ThyPROs) with 4-week and 1-week recall, respectively, and three daily EMAs for 4 weeks at time of inclusion and again after treatment (N = 115). Magnitude of change and statistical power (F-test statistics) were compared. Two designs were applied to the same data: Design 1 mimicked the practical realities of clinical trials by comparing 4-week recall ThyPRO administered at time of inclusion with EMA initiated at time of inclusion and collected prospectively for 1 week, thus not covering the same time frame or duration. Design 2 compared assessments covering the same 4 weeks after inclusion.
RESULTS: Design 1: the estimated change and statistical power were significantly larger for 4-week ThyPRO compared with EMAs. Design 2: retrospective assessments and EMAs had comparable change and power. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased the statistical power.
CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimal time frame for evaluation proved crucial for responsiveness. EMAs did not provide higher responsiveness than retrospective measures in either design. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased statistical power.