Coon Cheryl D, Cappelleri Joseph C
1 Outcometrix, Tucson, AZ, USA.
2 Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016 Jan;50(1):22-29. doi: 10.1177/2168479015622667.
Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments is a key aspect of instrument development. Without interpretation guidelines, the clinical meaning of significant improvements observed within a treatment group cannot be ascertained. While the field has contemplated this topic for several decades, there remains inconsistency in terminology, methods, and application. Careful selection of methods can result in determining when change is meaningful, but researchers must keep an open mind to the methods that best fit their study and instrument. In many cases, anchor-based methods are appropriate, but the statistical model that evaluates them should be defensible (eg, linear regression, repeated-measures modeling, logistic regression). Sometimes, researchers must entertain the use of novel methods that may be more appropriate for their planned studies and instrument (eg, standard setting, exit interviews, conjoint analysis). The selection of the method is best supported by clear, transparent communication with the regulatory agency to ensure that the method can support its goals.
解读患者报告结局工具得分的变化是工具开发的一个关键方面。如果没有解读指南,就无法确定治疗组内观察到的显著改善的临床意义。尽管该领域已经思考这个话题几十年了,但在术语、方法和应用方面仍然存在不一致。仔细选择方法可以确定何时变化是有意义的,但研究人员必须对最适合其研究和工具的方法持开放态度。在许多情况下,基于锚定的方法是合适的,但评估这些方法的统计模型应该是合理的(例如,线性回归、重复测量建模、逻辑回归)。有时,研究人员必须考虑使用可能更适合其计划研究和工具的新方法(例如,标准设定、离职访谈、联合分析)。与监管机构进行清晰、透明的沟通,以确保所选方法能够支持其目标,这最有助于方法的选择。