Guyatt G H, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten S J, Feeny D H, Patrick D L
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
CMAJ. 1989 Jun 15;140(12):1441-8.
Measurement of quality of life is becoming increasingly relevant to controlled clinical trials. Two basic types of instrument are available: generic instruments, which include health profiles and utility measurements based on the patient's preferences in regard to treatment and outcome; and specific instruments, which focus on problems associated with individual diseases, patient groups or areas of function. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive; each has its strengths and weaknesses and may be suitable under different circumstances. We surveyed 75 randomized trials published in three medical journals in 1986 and categorized them according to the importance of quality of life as a measure of outcome and the extent to which quality of life was actually measured. Although a number of the investigators used quality-of-life instruments in a sophisticated manner, in only 10 of 55 trials in which the measurement had been judged to be crucial or important were instruments with established validity and responsiveness used. We conclude that although accurate measurement of quality of life in randomized trials is now feasible it is still not widely done. Using the framework we have outlined, investigators can choose generic or specific instruments according to the purpose and the focus of their trial.
生活质量的测量在对照临床试验中变得越来越重要。有两种基本类型的工具:通用工具,包括基于患者对治疗和结果的偏好的健康概况和效用测量;以及特定工具,其关注与个体疾病、患者群体或功能领域相关的问题。这两种方法并非相互排斥;每种方法都有其优缺点,在不同情况下可能都适用。我们调查了1986年发表在三种医学期刊上的75项随机试验,并根据生活质量作为结果测量的重要性以及生活质量实际被测量的程度对它们进行了分类。尽管许多研究者以复杂的方式使用了生活质量工具,但在55项被判定测量至关重要或重要的试验中,只有10项使用了具有既定效度和反应性的工具。我们得出结论,虽然在随机试验中准确测量生活质量现在是可行的,但仍然没有广泛进行。利用我们概述的框架,研究者可以根据试验的目的和重点选择通用或特定的工具。