Suppr超能文献

SF-36 总体评分的最小临床重要差异:在骨科肿瘤学中的当前价值。

Minimal clinically important differences in SF-36 global score: Current value in orthopedic oncology.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.

出版信息

J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct;39(10):2116-2123. doi: 10.1002/jor.24944. Epub 2020 Dec 20.

Abstract

The SF-36 is widely used to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Instead of typical methods, calculating the SF-36 Global Score has recently become an increasingly common reporting approach. However, numerical changes lack clear clinical relevance. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is useful for interpreting changes in functional scores by defining the smallest change patients may perceive as clinically meaningful. The aim of this study is to determine the MCID of the SF-36 Global Score in orthopedic oncology patients, which has not been reported to date. Three-hundred ten patients who underwent surgery and completed two surveys during postoperative follow-up were reviewed. The two most common methods for calculating the SF-36 Global Score were used: (1) anchor-based methods and receiver operating characteristic analysis based on one-half of the SD of change score and standard error of measurement at baseline and; (2) distribution-based methods. Using anchor-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 2.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.85) and 2.5 (AUC = 0.79) for improvement, and -1.5 (AUC = 0.81) and -0.6 (AUC = 0.83) for deterioration, respectively. Using distribution-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 4.1 and 4.4 by half SD, and 4.1 and 4.5 by standard error of measurement, respectively. Our findings provide benchmark values, which can serve as a reference for future studies in musculoskeletal tumor patients using the SF-36 Global Score as a single measure for HRQoL.

摘要

SF-36 广泛用于评估肌肉骨骼肿瘤患者的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)。与典型方法不同,计算 SF-36 总体评分最近已成为一种越来越常见的报告方法。然而,数值变化缺乏明确的临床相关性。最小临床重要差异(MCID)可用于通过定义患者可能认为具有临床意义的最小变化来解释功能评分的变化。本研究的目的是确定迄今为止尚未报道的肌肉骨骼肿瘤患者 SF-36 总体评分的 MCID。回顾了 310 名接受手术并在术后随访期间完成了两次调查的患者。使用了两种最常见的计算 SF-36 总体评分的方法:(1)基于锚定的方法和基于基线变化评分和测量误差的一半 SD 的接收者操作特征分析;(2)基于分布的方法。使用基于锚定的方法,SF-36 总体评分 #1 和 #2 的 MCID 为 2.7(AUC=0.85)和 2.5(AUC=0.79),用于改善,-1.5(AUC=0.81)和-0.6(AUC=0.83)用于恶化。使用基于分布的方法,SF-36 总体评分 #1 和 #2 的 MCID 分别为半标准差的 4.1 和 4.4,以及测量误差的 4.1 和 4.5。我们的研究结果提供了基准值,可以作为未来使用 SF-36 总体评分作为 HRQoL 单一测量指标的肌肉骨骼肿瘤患者研究的参考。

相似文献

1
Minimal clinically important differences in SF-36 global score: Current value in orthopedic oncology.
J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct;39(10):2116-2123. doi: 10.1002/jor.24944. Epub 2020 Dec 20.
2
What Are the Minimum Clinically Important Differences in SF-36 Scores in Patients with Orthopaedic Oncologic Conditions?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Sep;478(9):2148-2158. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001341.
3
The critical difference in the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) outcome measure after essential upper extremity tumor surgery.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Sep;30(9):e602-e609. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.027. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
4
Minimal Clinically Important Differences for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score in Hallux Valgus Surgery.
Foot Ankle Int. 2017 May;38(5):551-557. doi: 10.1177/1071100716688724. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
5
Minimal clinically important difference in patients who underwent decompression alone for lumbar degenerative disease.
Spine J. 2022 Apr;22(4):549-560. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.010. Epub 2021 Oct 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Digital health interventions for non-older individuals at risk of frailty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Digit Health. 2025 Mar 21;11:20552076251328566. doi: 10.1177/20552076251328566. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
3
Twenty-five years of experience with patient-reported outcome measures in soft-tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic review.
Qual Life Res. 2024 Dec;33(12):3189-3211. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
7
The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023 Jul 15;21(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02157-3.

本文引用的文献

2
Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):265.e1-265.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
5
Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Nov 1;43(21):E1260-E1266. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002684.
6
Quality of Life From Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.17R: A Randomized Trial of Extending Adjuvant Letrozole to 10 Years.
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 20;36(6):563-571. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7500. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
7
Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:188-198. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009. Epub 2017 Jul 1.
8
Quality of life after bone sarcoma surgery around the knee: A long-term follow-up study.
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Jul;26(4). doi: 10.1111/ecc.12603. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
9
Reliability and Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Upper Extremity in Japanese Patients.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Sep;475(9):2253-2259. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5390-x. Epub 2017 May 30.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验