Suppr超能文献

成人中特定疾病和通用健康指标对哮喘严重程度变化的反应性。

The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults.

作者信息

Ware J E, Kemp J P, Buchner D A, Singer A E, Nolop K B, Goss T F

机构信息

Health Assessment Laboratory, New England Medical Center Hospital, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 1998 Apr;7(3):235-44. doi: 10.1023/a:1024946316424.

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare the validity of asthma-specific and generic health outcome measures in relation to changes in the severity of asthma and to treatment. Adult patients (n = 142) participating in a randomized placebo-controlled trial at six clinics were assessed at baseline, prior to the withdrawal (placebo) or continuation of treatment with Vanceril and again after 8 weeks. The criterion measures of change in severity included pulmonary function expressed as the percent predicted FEV1, five physician-assessed asthma severity measures (cough, chest tightness, wheezing, shortness of breath and overall condition) and two patient-assessed severity measures (night-time symptoms and overall symptoms). The 8 week change scores were estimated for all generic and specific measures and the results were compared across groups of patients who did and did not change in terms of clinical criteria of disease severity and across treatment groups. The responsiveness of each generic and specific measure was estimated independently using the relative validity (RV) methodology, which compares F-ratios for the mean change scores across measures in analyses of the same comparison groups. RV coefficients estimate how much worse each measure discriminated between comparison groups, relative to the best measure (RV = 1.0). Four standardized asthma-specific measures and a total scale score (based on the Marks questionnaire), an individualized asthma-specific scale measuring limitations in activities most important to each patient (based on the Juniper method) and two newly-developed scales measuring physical and psychosocial symptoms were used as outcome measures, generic health outcome measures included eight functional health and well-being scales as well as the physical and mental health summary scales from the SF-36 health survey. A standardized asthma-specific scale was most valid in discriminating between groups of patients who did and did not change according to all of the clinical criterion variables studied and in discriminating between treated and untreated groups. Different scales performed best, depending on the clinical criterion. The asthma-specific Marks breathlessness scale was significant in all nine comparisons (RV = 0.62-1.0) and was most valid in discriminating between groups in six of nine tests. The overall scale also performed well in all comparisons (RV = 0.58-1.0). The newly-developed physical symptoms scale was significant in discriminating between groups in eight out of nine tests (RV = 0.52-1.0) and was most valid in three of the nine, including the treatment comparison. The psychosocial impact scale discriminated significantly in eight of the nine comparisons (RV = 0.16-0.38), but was less valid than other specific measures. The asthma-specific individualized activities scale discriminated significantly in seven of the nine tests, but performed less well than the other specific measures (RV = 0.21-0.35) and was not significant in the treatment comparison. One or more SF-36 scales discriminated significantly between groups in all nine comparisons. Two of those scales (physical functioning and role-physical) were consistently more valid than the others (RV = 0.17 and 0.58, respectively) and were the only two generic scales that discriminated between groups of patients defined in terms of changes in FEV1 (RV = 0.26-0.58). The SF-36 physical summary scale discriminated significantly between groups in all nine comparisons (RV = 0.19-0.61) and was the most valid generic measure in the treatment comparison (RV = 0.55). The SF-36 mental summary scale was significant only for the two patient-assessed changes in disease severity (RV = 0.31 and 0.32) and for physician-assessed overall severity (RV = 0.12). A comprehensive battery of generic and specific measures is likely to be most useful in understanding the impact of changes in disease severity on the functional health and well-being of adults with asthma, a

摘要

该研究的目的是比较哮喘特异性和一般性健康结局指标与哮喘严重程度变化及治疗之间的相关性。在六家诊所参与随机安慰剂对照试验的成年患者(n = 142)在基线时、停用(安慰剂)或继续使用万托林治疗前以及8周后进行了评估。严重程度变化的标准指标包括以预测FEV1百分比表示的肺功能、五项医生评估的哮喘严重程度指标(咳嗽、胸闷、喘息、气短和总体状况)以及两项患者评估的严重程度指标(夜间症状和总体症状)。对所有一般性和特异性指标的8周变化分数进行了估计,并在疾病严重程度临床标准有变化和无变化的患者组以及治疗组之间比较了结果。使用相对有效性(RV)方法独立估计每个一般性和特异性指标的反应性,该方法在相同比较组的分析中比较各指标平均变化分数的F比率。RV系数估计每个指标在区分比较组方面比最佳指标(RV = 1.0)差多少。四项标准化哮喘特异性指标和一个总评分量表(基于马克斯问卷)、一个根据每位患者最重要活动限制进行个体化测量的哮喘特异性量表(基于朱尼珀方法)以及两个新开发的测量身体和心理社会症状的量表用作结局指标,一般性健康结局指标包括八个功能健康和幸福感量表以及SF-36健康调查中的身心健康总结量表。一个标准化哮喘特异性量表在根据所有研究的临床标准变量区分有变化和无变化的患者组以及区分治疗组和未治疗组方面最有效。根据临床标准,不同量表表现最佳。哮喘特异性马克斯呼吸困难量表在所有九项比较中均具有显著性(RV = 0.62 - 1.0),并且在九项测试中的六项中区分组间差异时最有效。总体量表在所有比较中也表现良好(RV = 0.58 - 1.0)。新开发的身体症状量表在九项测试中的八项中区分组间差异具有显著性(RV = 0.52 - 1.0),并且在九项中的三项中最有效,包括治疗比较。心理社会影响量表在九项比较中的八项中具有显著区分度(RV = 0.16 - 0.38),但比其他特异性指标有效性低。哮喘特异性个体化活动量表在九项测试中的七项中具有显著区分度,但表现不如其他特异性指标(RV = 0.21 - 0.35),并且在治疗比较中不具有显著性。一项或多项SF-36量表在所有九项比较中显著区分组间差异。其中两项量表(身体功能和身体角色)始终比其他量表更有效(分别为RV = 0.17和0.58),并且是仅有的两项在根据FEV1变化定义的患者组间进行区分的一般性量表(RV = 0.26 - 0.58)。SF-36身体总结量表在所有九项比较中显著区分组间差异(RV = 0.19 - 0.61),并且在治疗比较中是最有效的一般性指标(RV = 0.55)。SF-36心理总结量表仅在两项患者评估的疾病严重程度变化(RV = 0.31和0.32)以及医生评估的总体严重程度(RV = 0.12)方面具有显著性。一组全面的一般性和特异性指标可能在理解疾病严重程度变化对成年哮喘患者功能健康和幸福感的影响方面最有用。

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