Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511545856.027

27 - Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2009

Dennis A. Revicki Ph.D.

Edited by

Joseph Lipscomb ,

Carolyn C. Gotay and

Claire Snyder

Show author details

Dennis A. Revicki Ph.D.: Affiliation:
Vice President and Director MEDTAP International, Bethesda, MD
Joseph Lipscomb: Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Carolyn C. Gotay: Affiliation:
Cancer Research Center, Hawaii
Claire Snyder: Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

More than 50 years ago, clinical researchers in oncology recognized that the outcomes of chemotherapy extended beyond survival and other clinical endpoints. The earliest effort to systematically measure the impact of cancer therapy on patient functional status was by Karnofsky et al. During the past 30 years, significant advances have been made in understanding the impact of cancer and oncology treatments on patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes.– HRQOL measures extend patient outcomes assessment beyond survival, toxicity, and clinical efficacy and reflect the patient's perspective on the impact of disease and its treatment on functioning and well-being. Frequently, an important objective for evaluating HRQOL outcomes is demonstrating the value of new oncology treatments relative to other competing treatments. The pharmaceutical industry's intent in funding clinical trials with HRQOL measures is to achieve labeling and/or promotional claims for marketing to physicians, pharmacists, health care decision makers, and patients.,

Although HRQOL outcomes have been used in evaluating oncology treatments, the use of these endpoints in drug development and the regulatory approval process is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged the measurement of survival, symptom, and HRQOL endpoints in evaluating oncology treatments. During the past 17 years, no new cancer chemotherapy has been approved based primarily on HRQOL endpoints., More recent statements by FDA officials continue to express skepticism about the value of HRQOL in evaluating oncology treatments.

Type: Chapter
Information: Outcomes Assessment in Cancer
Measures, Methods and Applications
, pp. 550 - 567

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511545856.027 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barofsky, I., Sugarbaker, P. (1990). Cancer. In Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials, ed. B. Spilker, pp. 419–40. New York: Raven

Karnofsky, D., Abelman, W., Craver, L.et al. (1948). The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinomaCancer 1:634–563.0.CO;2-L>CrossRef Google Scholar

Kiebert, G., Curran, D., Aaronson, N. (1998). Quality of life as an endpoint in EORTC clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine 17:561–93.0.CO;2-S>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Litwin, Talcott, this volume, Chapter 6

Ganz, Goodwin, this volume, Chapter 5

Moinpour, Provenzale, this volume, Chapter 8

Earle, Weeks, this volume, Chapter 7

Osoba, this volume, Chapter 19

Leidy, N., Revicki, D., Geneste, B. (1999). Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotionValue in Health 2:113–27CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Revicki, D., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D.et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United StatesQuality of Life Research 9:887–900CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Johnson, J. R., Temple, R. (1985). Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugsCancer Treatment Reports 69:1155–7Google Scholar PubMed

Beitz, J. (1999). Quality-of-life end points in oncology drug trialsOncology 13:1439–42Google Scholar PubMed

F-D-C Reports. (2002). Oncologic NDA approval standards: FDA asks “what stands behind” response rate. Pink Sheet 64:34–5

American Society for Clinical Oncology (1996). Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelinesJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:671–9CrossRef

Berzon, R. (1998). Understanding and using health-related quality of life instruments within clinical research studies. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 3–18. New York: Oxford University Press

Revicki, D. A. (2000). The added value of health-related quality of life evidence: is safety and efficacy enough? Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Food and Drug Administration (1998). Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs — Designation, Development and Application Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004

Aaronson, N., Cull, A., Kaasa, S. et al. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessments in oncology: an update. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 179–90. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Cella, D., Bonomi, A. (1996). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) quality of life measurement system. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 203–14. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Clinch, J. J. (1996). The Functional Living Index-Cancer: ten years later. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 215–25. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Padilla, G., Grant, M., Ferrell, B., Presant, C. (1996). Quality of Life-Cancer. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 301–8. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Osoba, D. (1999). What has been learned from measuring health-related quality of life in clinical oncology?European Journal of Cancer 35:1565–70CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Osoba, D. (1999). Quality of life instruments in oncologyEuropean Journal of Cancer 35:1571–80Google Scholar

McCabe, M. S., Shoemaker, D., Temple, R. J. et al. (1996). Regulatory perspectives on quality of life issues. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 569–74. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Beitz, J., Gnecco, C., Justice, R. (1996). Quality of life endpoints in cancer clinical trialsJournal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 20:7–9Google Scholar

Bergner, M. (1989). Quality of life, health status, and clinical researchMedical Care 27(Suppl.):S148–56CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ferrans, this volume, Chapter 2

Patrick, D. L., Erickson, P. (1993). Health Status and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press

Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., Olweny, C. L. (1996). Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 11–24. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

World Health Organization (1958). The First Ten Years of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization

Cella, D., Tulsky, D. (1990). Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspectsOncology 5:29–38Google Scholar

Gill, T. M., Feinstein, A. R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurementsJournal of the American Medical Association 272:619–26CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leplege, A., Hunt, S. (1997). The problem of quality of life in medicineJournal of the American Medical Association 278:47–50CrossRef Google Scholar

Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K.et al. for the PRO Harmonization Group (2004). Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health 6(5):522–31CrossRef Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, 1997. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004

Smith, N. D. (1993). Quality of life studies from the perspective of an FDA reviewing statisticianDrug Information Journal 27:617–23CrossRef Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. (2000). Guidance to Industry: Content and Format of the Adverse Reactions Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004

Morris, L. A., Miller, D. (2002). The regulation of patient reported outcome claims: need for a flexible standardValue in Health 5:372–81CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Burke, L. B. (2000). Acceptable evidence for pharmaceutical advertising and labeling. Presented at Drug Information Association Workshop on Pharmacoeconomic and Quality of Life Labeling and Marketing Claims. New Orleans, Louisiana

Federal Trade Commission. (1984). Policy statement regarding Advertising Substantiation ProgramFederal Register 49(50):30999–1001

Santanello, N. C., Baker, D., Cappelleri, J. C.et al. (2002). Regulatory issues for health-related quality of life — PhRMA Health Outcomes Committee Workshop, 1999Value in Health 5:14–25CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Revicki, D. A., Rothman, M., Luce, B. (1992). Health-related quality of life assessment and the pharmaceutical industryPharmacoeconomics 1:394–408CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. (2001). National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:979–89CrossRef

Morris, L. A., Beckett, T., Lechter, K. (1996). A marketing perspective: theoretical underpinnings. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 541–8. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven

Jack, W. (1991). Pharmaceutical differentiation through quality of life measurement: a case studyJournal of Pharmaceutical Marketing Management 10:33–53Google Scholar

Burke, L. B. (2000). Regulatory issues in the use of patient reported outcomes in drug labeling and advertising. Presented at the Health-Related Quality of Life Workshop. Rockville, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration

Camptosar (Irinotecan hydrochloride) Injection Package Insert. Kalamazoo, MI: Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, 2000

Cunningham, D. C., Pyrhonen, S., James, R. D.et al. (1998). Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancerLancet 352:1413–18CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rougier, P., Cutsem, E., Bajetta, E.et al. (1998). Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancerLancet 352:1407–12CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Casodex®(Bicalutamide tablets) Package Insert. Wilmington, DE: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, 2000

Schellhammer, P., Sharifi, R., Block, N.et al. (1996). Maximal androgen blockade for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: outcome of a controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy. Casodex Combination Study GroupUrology 47(1A Suppl):54–60CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Schellhammer, P., Sharifi, R., Block, N.et al. (1995). A controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy, in patients with advanced prostate cancer Casodex Combination Study Group. Urology 45:745–52CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gemzar (Gemcitabine HCI) for Injection Package Insert. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company, 1998

Cardenal, F., Lopez-Cabrerizo, M. P., Anton, A.et al. (1999). Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:12–18CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sandler, A. B., Nemunaitis, J., Denham, C.et al. (2000). Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:122–30CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Navelbine (vinorelbine tartrate) Injection Package Insert. Research Triangle Park, NC: GlaxoWellcome Inc., 2000

LeChavalier, T., Brisgand, D., Douillard, J. Y.et al. (1994). Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patientsJournal of Clinical Oncology 12:360–7CrossRef Google Scholar

Wozniak, A. J., Crowley, J. L., Balcerzak, S. et al. (1998). Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2459–65CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Crawford, J., O'Rourke, M., Schiller, J. H.et al. (1996). Randomized trial of vinorelbine compared with flourouracil plus leucovorin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:2774–84CrossRef Google Scholar

Taxol® (paclitaxel) Injection Package Insert. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2000

Bonomi, P., Kim, K. M., Fairclough, D.et al. (2000). Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trialJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:623–31CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Giaccone, G., Splinter, T. A. W., Debruyne, C.et al. (1998). Randomized study of paclitaxel-cisplatin versus cisplatin-teniposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2133–41CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Thyrogen (thyrotropin alfa) for Injection Package Insert. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme Corporation, 1999

Haugen, B. R., Pacini, F., Reiners, C.et al. (1999). A comparison of recombinant human thyrotropin and thyroid hormone withdrawal for the detection of thyroid remnant or cancerJournal of Clinical Epidemiology and Metabolism 81:3877–85Google Scholar

Ladenson, P. W., Braverman, L. E., Mazzaferri, E. L.et al. (1997). Comparison of administration of recombinant human thyrotropin with withdrawal of thyroid hormone for radioactive iodine scanning in patients with thyroid carcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine 337:888–95CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Aredia (pamidronate disodium) for Injection Package Insert. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceutical Co., 1999

Theriault, R. L., Lipton, A., Hortobagyi, G. N.et al. (1999). Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: a randomized, placebo-controlled trialJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:846–54CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hortobagyi, G. N., Theriault, R. L., Lipton, A.et al. (1998).Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronateJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2038–44CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

King, M. T. (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30Quality of Life Research 5:555–67CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tannock, I. F., Osoba, D., Stockler, M. R.et al. (1996). Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end pointsJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:1756–64CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Osoba, D., Tannock, I. F., Ernst, S.et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated by prednisone alone or mitoxantrone and prednisoneJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:1654–63CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Demetri, G. D., Kris, M., Wade, J.et al. (1998). Quality-of-life benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin alpha is independent of disease response or tumor type: results from a prospective community oncology studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:3412–25CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rowland, K. M., Loprinzi, C. L., Shaw, E. G.et al. (1996). Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of cisplatin and etoposide plus megestrol acetate in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:135–41CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Simons, J. P. F., Aaronson, N. K., Vansteenkiste, J. F.et al. (1996). Effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate on appetite, weight, and quality of life in advanced-stage non-hormone-sensitive cancer: a placebo-controlled multicentre studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:1077–84CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruera, E., Ernst, S., Hagen, N.et al. (1998). Effectiveness of megestrol acetate in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized, double-blind, crossover studyCancer Prevention and Control 2:74–8Google Scholar PubMed

Medical Research Council Working Party (1993). A randomized trial of three or six courses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and vincristine or six courses of etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer. II: quality of lifeBritish Journal of Cancer 68:1157–66CrossRef

Osoba, D., Brada, M., Yung, W. K.et al. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients treated with temozolomide versus procarbazine for recurrent glioblastoma multiformeJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:1481–91CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Osoba, D., Brada, M., Yung, W. K.et al. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma during treatment with temozolomideEuropean Journal of Cancer 36:1788–95CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Seymour, M. T., Slevin, M. L., Kerr, D. J.et al. (1996). Randomized trial assessing the addition of interferon alpa-2a to flourouracil and leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:2282–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Osoba, D., Northfelt, D. W., Budd, D. W.et al. (2001). Effect of treatment on health-related quality of life in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma: a randomized trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristineCancer Investigation 19:573–80CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Coates, A., Gebski, V., Bishop, J. F.et al. (1987). Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategiesNew England Journal of Medicine 317:1490–5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tannock, I. F., Boyd, N. F., DeBoer, G.et al. (1988). A randomized trial of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 6:1377–87CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fairclough, D. L., Fetting, J. H., Cella, D.et al. (1999). Quality of life and quality adjusted survival for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapyQuality of Life Research 8:723–31CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Levine, M., Guyatt, G., Gent, M.et al. (1988). Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trialsJournal of Clinical Oncology 6:1798–810CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kaasa, S., Mastekaasea, A., Lund, E. (1989). Prognostic factors for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer, limited diseaseRadiotherapy Oncology 15:235–42CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ganz, P., Lee, J., Siau, J. (1991). Quality of life assessment: an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancerCancer 67:3131–53.0.CO;2-4>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Coates, A., Grebski, V., Signorini, D.et al. (1992). Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 10:1833–8CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Earlam, S., Glover, C., Fordy, C.et al. (1996). Relation between tumor size, quality of life, and survival in patients with colorectal liver metastasesJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:171–5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Coates, A., Porzsolt, F., Osoba, D. (1997). Quality of life in oncology practice: prognostic value of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced malignancyEuropean Journal of Cancer 33:1025–30CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dancey, J., Zee, B., Osoba, D.et al. (1997). Quality of life scores: an independent prognostic variable in a general population of cancer patients receiving chemotherapyQuality of Life Research 6:151–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Coates, A., Hurny, C., Peterson, H.et al. (2000). Quality-of-life scores predict outcome in metastatic but not early breast cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:3768–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Langendijk, J. A., Aaronson, N. K., ten Velde, G. P.et al. (2000). Pretreatment quality of life of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients referred for primary radiotherapyActa Oncology 39:949–58Google Scholar PubMed

Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Alderson, D. (2001). The prognostic value of quality of life scores during treatment for oesophageal cancerGut 49:227–30CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R.et al. (2001). Oncologists' use of quality of life information: results from a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physiciansQuality of Life Research 10:1–13CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chassany, O., Sagnier, P., Marquis, P.et al. for the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group (2002). Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life — a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory processDrug Information Journal 36:209–18CrossRef Google Scholar

Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteriaQuality of Life Research 11:193–205CrossRef

Hays, R. D., Anderson, R. T., Revicki, D. A. (1998). Assessing reliability and validity of measurements in clinical trials. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, eds. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 169–82. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45:1341–5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Guyatt, G., Osoba, D., Wu, A., Wyrwich, K., Norman, G. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measuresMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:371–83CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cella, D., Bullinger, M., Scott, C.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Group versus individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of lifeMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:384–92CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sprangers, M., Moinpour, C., Moynihan, T.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Assessing meaningful change over time in quality of life: a users' guide for cliniciansMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:561–71CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sloan, J., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scoresMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:479–87CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hambleton, R., Robin, F., Xing, D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, eds. H. Tinsley, S. Brown. San Diego: Academic PressCrossRef

Embretson, S., Reise, S. (2001). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Reise, this volume, Chapter 21

Hambleton, this volume, Chapter 22

Wilson, this volume, Chapter 23

Hays, R., Morales, L., Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st centuryMedical Care 38(Suppl. II):II-28–42CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fairclough, D. (1998). Methods of analysis for longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R.Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 227–45. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Curran, D., Fayers, P., Molenberghs, G. et al. (1998). Analysis of incomplete quality of life data in clinical trials. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 249–80. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Fayers, P., Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Fairclough, D. (2002). Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall/CRC Press

Mesbah, M., Cole, B. (ed.) (2002). Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies: Design, Measurement, and Analysis. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. (1997). Applications of random-effects pattern mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studiesPsychological Methods 2:64–78CrossRef Google Scholar

Revicki, D., Gold, K., Buckman, D.et al. (2001). Imputing physical function scores missing owing to mortality: results of a simulation comparing multiple techniquesMedical Care 39:61–71CrossRef Google Scholar

Luce, B., Shih, Y. C. T., Claxton, A. (2001). Special Section: Bayesian approaches to technology assessment and decision makingInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17(1):1–125CrossRef Google Scholar