Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review
Loading...
Date
Authors
Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G.
Karvouni, A.
Kouri, I.
Ioannidis, J. P.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Type
Type of the conference item
Journal type
peer-reviewed
Educational material type
Conference Name
Journal name
BMJ
Book name
Book series
Book edition
Alternative title / Subtitle
Description
OBJECTIVE: To determine how often health surveys and quality of life evaluations reach different conclusions from those of primary efficacy outcomes and whether discordant results make a difference in the interpretation of trial findings. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, contact with authors for missing information, and author survey for unpublished SF-36 data. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials with SF-36 outcomes (the most extensively validated and used health survey instrument for appraising quality of life) that were published in 2005 in 22 journals with a high impact factor. DATA EXTRACTION: Analyses on the two composite and eight subdomain SF-36 scores that corresponded to the time and mode of analysis of the primary efficacy outcome. RESULTS: Of 1057 screened trials, 52 were identified as randomised trials with SF-36 results (66 separate comparisons). Only eight trials reported all 10 SF-36 scores in the published articles. For 21 of the 66 comparisons, SF-36 results were discordant for statistical significance compared with the results for primary efficacy outcomes. Of 17 statistically significant SF-36 scores where primary outcomes were not also statistically significant in the same direction, the magnitude of effect was small in six, moderate in six, large in three, and not reported in two. Authors modified the interpretation of study findings based on SF-36 results in only two of the 21 discordant cases. Among 100 additional randomly selected trials not reporting any SF-36 information, at least five had collected SF-36 data but only one had analysed it. CONCLUSIONS: SF-36 measurements sometimes produce different results from those of the primary efficacy outcomes but rarely modify the overall interpretation of randomised trials. Quality of life and health related survey information should be utilised more systematically in randomised trials.
Description
Keywords
*Health Surveys, Humans, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Questionnaires, *Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
Subject classification
Citation
Link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139138
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/339747/field_highwire_article_pdf/0
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/339747/field_highwire_article_pdf/0
Language
en
Publishing department/division
Advisor name
Examining committee
General Description / Additional Comments
Institution and School/Department of submitter
Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής