Kosinski M, Keller S D, Ware J E, Hatoum H T, Kong S X
Health Assessment Lab, Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Med Care. 1999 May;37(5 Suppl):MS23-39. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199905001-00003.
To evaluate the validity of SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) scale scores and summary measure scores to describe the health burden of arthritis and to be responsive to clinical indicators of arthritis severity used in four clinical trials.
Adults participating in four double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials of therapy for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were administered the SF-36 concurrent with clinical measures of disease severity (n = 1,016). Data were collected before treatment and 2 weeks after treatment. Mean SF-36 scores for all patients with arthritis at baseline were compared to a sociodemographically equivalent national norm to test the ability of the SF-36 to describe the burden of arthritis. To test the responsiveness of SF-36 scores to clinical measures of arthritis severity, mean SF-36 scale scores were compared across patients differing in arthritis severity before treatment. Two-week mean SF-36 change scores were compared across patients who improved in arthritis severity (responders) versus patients who did not improve (nonresponders). F-statistics and relative validity coefficients were computed to determine how well each SF-36 scale and summary measure discriminated among arthritis severity levels and distinguished treatment responders from nonresponders, relative to the best scale.
Large and statistically significant differences in mean SF-36 scale scores and summary measures were found such that trial participants scored in worse health than a sociodemographically equivalent US general population norm. In addition, the largest SF-36 scale scores were found to significantly differ across clinically defined levels of arthritis severity. Finally, it was found that the SF-36 scales that best discriminate among arthritis severity groups cross-sectionally were also best at discriminating treatment responders from nonresponders.
Results of this study support the validity of the SF-36 to document the health burden of arthritis and as a measure of generic health outcome for clinical trials of alternative treatments for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients.
评估SF-36健康调查(SF-36)量表得分及汇总测量得分在描述关节炎健康负担以及对四项临床试验中所使用的关节炎严重程度临床指标的反应性方面的有效性。
参与四项骨关节炎或类风湿关节炎治疗双盲、安慰剂对照临床试验的成年人在接受疾病严重程度临床测量的同时接受了SF-36测评(n = 1,016)。在治疗前和治疗后2周收集数据。将所有关节炎患者在基线时的平均SF-36得分与社会人口统计学特征相当的全国常模进行比较,以测试SF-36描述关节炎负担的能力。为测试SF-36得分对关节炎严重程度临床测量的反应性,比较了治疗前关节炎严重程度不同的患者的平均SF-36量表得分。比较了关节炎严重程度改善的患者(反应者)与未改善的患者(无反应者)的两周平均SF-36变化得分。计算F统计量和相对有效性系数,以确定每个SF-36量表和汇总测量相对于最佳量表在区分关节炎严重程度水平以及区分治疗反应者与无反应者方面的表现。
发现SF-36量表得分和汇总测量存在巨大且具有统计学意义的差异,以至于试验参与者的健康状况得分低于社会人口统计学特征相当的美国普通人群常模。此外,发现SF-36量表得分在临床上定义的关节炎严重程度水平之间存在显著差异。最后,发现横断面区分关节炎严重程度组最佳的SF-36量表在区分治疗反应者与无反应者方面也最佳。
本研究结果支持SF-36在记录关节炎健康负担方面的有效性,以及作为骨关节炎和类风湿关节炎患者替代治疗临床试验的一般健康结局指标的有效性。