Cargando…
Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review
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 au...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006 |
_version_ | 1782163683933159424 |
---|---|
author | Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G Karvouni, Anastasia Kouri, Ioanna Ioannidis, John P A |
author_facet | Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G Karvouni, Anastasia Kouri, Ioanna Ioannidis, John P A |
author_sort | Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G |
collection | PubMed |
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 Data sources PubMed, contact with authors for missing information, and author survey for unpublished SF-36 data.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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2628302 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26283022009-01-16 Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G Karvouni, Anastasia Kouri, Ioanna Ioannidis, John P A BMJ Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2009-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC2628302/ /pubmed/19139138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006 Text en © Contopoulos et al 2009 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G Karvouni, Anastasia Kouri, Ioanna Ioannidis, John P A Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title | Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title_full | Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title_fullStr | Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title_short | Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
title_sort | reporting and interpretation of sf-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT contopoulosioannidisdespinag reportingandinterpretationofsf36outcomesinrandomisedtrialssystematicreview AT karvounianastasia reportingandinterpretationofsf36outcomesinrandomisedtrialssystematicreview AT kouriioanna reportingandinterpretationofsf36outcomesinrandomisedtrialssystematicreview AT ioannidisjohnpa reportingandinterpretationofsf36outcomesinrandomisedtrialssystematicreview |