Guyatt G H
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Oct;22(4 Suppl A):185A-191A. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90488-m.
Measurement of health-related quality of life is becoming increasingly relevant to controlled clinical trials. Two basic approaches to health-related quality of life measurement are available: generic instruments that attempt to provide a summary of health-related quality of life, and specific instruments that focus on problems associated with individual disease states, patient groups or areas of function. Generic instruments include health profiles and instruments that generate utility measures of health-related quality of life. The approaches are not mutually exclusive. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses and may be suitable under different circumstances. A number of disease-specific measures for heart failure have been developed. For each measure, there is some evidence regarding key measurement properties, responsiveness and validity. An instrument is responsive if it can detect important changes, even if those changes are small. An instrument is valid if it is really measuring what it is supposed to measure. Only one disease-specific instrument that addresses a wide range of health-related quality of life impairment, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, has shown responsiveness in the context of double-blind, multicenter, pharmaceutical clinical trials. Both generic and specific measures should find increasing use in clinical trials in heart failure. Careful attention to rigorous administration is necessary for useful results. Trials should be constructed to obtain additional data regarding both validity and changes in instrument score that correspond to small, medium and large changes in health-related quality of life. If these guidelines are followed, useful information about the impact of interventions on heart failure will become increasingly available.
与健康相关的生活质量测量在对照临床试验中变得越来越重要。有两种基本的与健康相关的生活质量测量方法:通用工具,旨在提供与健康相关的生活质量的总结;以及特定工具,专注于与个体疾病状态、患者群体或功能领域相关的问题。通用工具包括健康概况和生成与健康相关的生活质量效用测量的工具。这些方法并非相互排斥。每种方法都有其优缺点,在不同情况下可能适用。已经开发了一些针对心力衰竭的疾病特异性测量方法。对于每种测量方法,都有一些关于关键测量属性、反应性和有效性的证据。如果一种工具能够检测到重要变化,即使这些变化很小,那么它就是有反应性的。如果一种工具真正测量的是它应该测量的东西,那么它就是有效的。只有一种针对广泛的与健康相关的生活质量损害的疾病特异性工具,即明尼苏达心力衰竭生活问卷,在双盲、多中心、药物临床试验中显示出了反应性。通用和特定测量方法在心力衰竭临床试验中的应用都应越来越广泛。为了获得有用的结果,必须仔细注意严格的实施。试验应设计成获取关于有效性以及与健康相关的生活质量的小、中、大变化相对应的工具分数变化的额外数据。如果遵循这些指导原则,可以越来越多地获得关于干预措施对心力衰竭影响的有用信息。