Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:50:56.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Criteria for the Selection of Quality-of-Life Instruments for the Evaluation of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cell Transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Henry A. Glick ,
Elizabeth J. Shpall ,
C. F. LeMaistre ,
Thomas J. McCarron ,
Z. John Lu ,
M. Haim Erder  and
John A. Glaspy
Henry A. Glick
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Elizabeth J. Shpall
Affiliation:
University of Colorado
C. F. LeMaistre
Affiliation:
South Texas Cancer Institute
Thomas J. McCarron
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Z. John Lu
Affiliation:
Amgen, Inc.
M. Haim Erder
Affiliation:
Amgen, Inc.
John A. Glaspy
Affiliation:
UCLA School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose a method for selecting quality-of-life instruments for use in phase III trials using the convergent validity of patient responses collected in phase I and II clinical trials.Two generic and two disease-specific instruments were administered to patients with breast cancer undergoing peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization and transplantation. They included the visual analog scale from the EuroQoL EQ5D instrument, the SF-36, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy instrument. No single instrument was found to have superior convergent validity in all domains, but the EORTC-QLQ-C30 seemed to perform better than the SF-36.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , Summer 1998 , pp. 419 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal National Cancer Institute, 1993, 85, 365–78.Google Scholar
2.Bamber, D.The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1975, 12, 387–415.Google Scholar
3.Bowling, A.Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales. London, UK: Open University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
4.Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, D.Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 1993, 2, 169–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Cella, D. F.Manual, Functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scales. Chicago: Rush-Presbyterian-St.Luke's Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
6.Efron, B.Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1987, 82, 171–200.Google Scholar
7.Efron, B., & Gong, G.A leisurely look at the bootstrap, jackknife and cross-validation. The American Statistician, 1983, 37, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J.An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
9.The EuroQol Group. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy, 1991, 19, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.The EuroQol Group. EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 1990, 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., et al. EORTC QLQ- C30 scoring manual. Brussels, Belgium: EORTC, 1995.Google Scholar
12.Glaspy, J., LeMaistre, C. F., Lill, M., et al. Dose-response of 7 day administration of recombinant methionyl human stem cell factor (SCF) in combination with filgrastim (G-CSF) for progenitor cell mobilization in patients with Stage II-IV breast cancer. Blood, 1995, 86, 1837.Google Scholar
13.Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L.Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1993, 118, 622–29.Google Scholar
14.Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Griffith, L. E., et al. Children and adult perceptions of childhood asthma. Pediatrics, 1997, 99, 165–68.Google Scholar
15.Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J.The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Diagnostic Radiology, 1982, 143, 29–36.Google Scholar
16.Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S.Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
17.Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., et al. Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 1996, 5, 35–46.Google Scholar
18.Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., & Jaeschke, R.How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In Spilker, B. (ed), Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. 2nd ed.New York: Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996, 49–56.Google Scholar
19.Kinosian, B., Glick, H., & Garland, G.Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: Predicting risk by levels and ratios. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 121, 641–47.Google Scholar
20.McDowell, I., & Newell, C.Measuring health. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
21.Medical Outcomes Trust. Instrument review criteria, I–IV. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin, 1995, 3, 4.Google Scholar
22.Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O.Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
23.Patrick, D. L., & Erickson, P.Health status and health policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
24.Pryor, D. B., Shaw, L., McCants, C. B., et al. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1993, 118, 81–90.Google Scholar
25.SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1990.Google Scholar
26.Schumaker, S. A., Anderson, R. T., & Czajkowski, S. M.Psychologic tests and scales. In Spilker, B. (ed), Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Pres 1990, 95–113.Google Scholar
27.Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E.Methods of constructing health measures. In Stewart, A. L. & Ware, J. E. Jr., (eds), Measuring functioning and well-being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992, 67–85.Google Scholar
28.Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J.E. Jr. (eds). Measuring functioning and well-being. Durham NC: Duke University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
29.Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R.Health measurement scales; 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
30.Tchekmedyian, N. S., & Cella, D. F. (eds). Quality of life in current oncology practice and research. Williston Park, NY: Dominus Publishing, 1991.Google Scholar
31.Ware, J.E. Jr., SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual. Bost MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1994.Google Scholar
32.Ware, J. E. Jr., SF-36 health survey, manual & interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
33.Wilken, D., Hallam, L., & Doggett, M. A.Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford, UK: Oxford Medical Press, 1992.Google Scholar