| 1. |
- Sawatzky, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Response shift results of quantitative research using patient-reported outcome measures: a descriptive systematic review
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Quality of Life Research. - 0962-9343. ; 33:2, s. 293-315
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeThe objective of this systematic review was to describe the prevalence and magnitude of response shift effects, for different response shift methods, populations, study designs, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)s.MethodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Social Science Citation Index, and Dissertations & Theses Global to identify longitudinal quantitative studies that examined response shift using PROMs, published before 2021. The magnitude of each response shift effect (effect sizes, R-squared or percentage of respondents with response shift) was ascertained based on reported statistical information or as stated in the manuscript. Prevalence and magnitudes of response shift effects were summarized at two levels of analysis (study and effect levels), for recalibration and reprioritization/reconceptualization separately, and for different response shift methods, and population, study design, and PROM characteristics. Analyses were conducted twice: (a) including all studies and samples, and (b) including only unrelated studies and independent samples.ResultsOf the 150 included studies, 130 (86.7%) detected response shift effects. Of the 4868 effects investigated, 793 (16.3%) revealed response shift. Effect sizes could be determined for 105 (70.0%) of the studies for a total of 1130 effects, of which 537 (47.5%) resulted in detection of response shift. Whereas effect sizes varied widely, most median recalibration effect sizes (Cohen's d) were between 0.20 and 0.30 and median reprioritization/reconceptualization effect sizes rarely exceeded 0.15, across the characteristics. Similar results were obtained from unrelated studies.ConclusionThe results draw attention to the need to focus on understanding variability in response shift results: Who experience response shifts, to what extent, and under which circumstances?
|
|
| 2. |
- Brennan, S L, et al.
(författare)
-
FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Osteoporosis International. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0937-941X .- 1433-2965. ; 25:1, s. 61-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We investigated the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) Canada calibration and discrimination according to income quintile in 51,327 Canadian women, with and without a competing mortality framework. Our data show that, under a competing mortality framework, FRAX provides robust fracture prediction and calibration regardless of socioeconomic status (SES).
|
|
| 3. |
- Leslie, W D, et al.
(författare)
-
Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Archives of Osteoporosis. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1862-3514 .- 1862-3522. ; 8:1-2, s. 145-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We compared the calibration of FRAX tools from Canada, the US (white), UK, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, and China when used to assess fracture risk in 36,730 Canadian women. Our data underscores the importance of applying country-specific FRAX tools that are based upon high-quality national fracture epidemiology.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sajobi, T. T., et al.
(författare)
-
Quality of Life in Epilepsy: Same questions, but different meaning to different people
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Epilepsia. - : Wiley. - 0013-9580 .- 1528-1167. ; 62:9, s. 2094-2102
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used widely to elicit patient's self-appraisal of their health status and quality of life. One fundamental assumption when measuring PROMs is that all individuals interpret questions about their health status in a consistent manner. However, subgroups of patients with a similar health condition may respond differently to PROM questions (ie, differential item functioning [DIF]), leading to biased estimates of group differences on PROM scores. Understanding these differences can help inform the clinical interpretation of PROMs. This study examined whether DIF affects 10-item Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE10) scores reported by patients with epilepsy in outpatient clinics. Methods Data were from the Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, a prospective registry of patients with epilepsy in Calgary, Alberta. Latent variable mixture models (LVMMs) based on standard two-parameter graded response models with increasing numbers of latent classes were applied to QOLIE10 item data. Model fit was assessed using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and latent class model entropy. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify QOLIE10 items that exhibited DIF. Results In this cohort of 1143 patients, 567 (49.6%) were female and the median age was 37.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 27.0) years. A two-class LVMM, which provided the best fit to the data, identified two subgroups of patients with different response patterns to QOLIE10 items, with class proportions of 0.62 and 0.38. The two subgroups differed with respect to antiseizure polytherapy, reported medication side effects, frequency of seizures, and psychiatric comorbidities. QOLIE10 items on the physical and psychological side effects of medication exhibited large DIF effects. Significance Our study revealed two different response patterns to quality-of-life instruments, suggesting heterogeneity in how patients interpret some of the questions. Researchers and users of PROMs in epilepsy need to consider the differential interpretation of items for various instruments to ensure valid understanding and comparisons of PROM scores.
|
|
| 5. |
- Leslie, W D, et al.
(författare)
-
A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX®.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1433-2965 .- 0937-941X. ; 23:3, s. 853-60
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Use of lumbar spine T-score or minimum T-score as a bone mineral density (BMD) input to the FRAX® algorithm led to miscalibration compared with the recommended femoral neck input. Use of a weighted mean between the lumbar spine and femoral neck T-scores was found to provide an arithmetically equivalent result to a previously described offset adjustment.
|
|
| 6. |
- Leslie, W D, et al.
(författare)
-
Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1433-2965 .- 0937-941X. ; 23:1, s. 75-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Fracture probability assessed without bone mineral density (BMD) could potentially be sufficient for clinical decision making in many individuals categorized as low or high fracture risk. For individuals falling in a moderate risk range, there is incremental value in using BMD in the probability calculation as this appropriately reclassifies risk in over one third of the individuals.
|
|
| 7. |
- Ye, C. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Adjusting FRAX Estimates of Fracture Probability Based on a Positive Vertebral Fracture Assessment
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JAMA Network Open. - 2574-3805. ; 6:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance FRAX is the most widely used and validated fracture risk prediction tool worldwide. Vertebral fractures, which are an indicator of subsequent osteoporotic fractures, can be identified using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) vertebral fracture assessment (VFA).Objective To assess the calibration of FRAX and develop a simple method for improving FRAX-predicted fracture probability in the presence of VFA-identified fracture.Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study analyzed the DXA and VFA results of all individuals who underwent a VFA between March 31, 2010, and March 31, 2018, who were included in the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density Registry. These individuals were randomly assigned to either the development cohort or validation cohort. A modified algorithm-based qualitative approach was used by expert readers to code VFAs as positive (=1 vertebral fractures detected) or negative (0 vertebral fracture detected). Statistical analysis was conducted from August 7, 2022, to May 22, 2023.Exposures FRAX scores for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture were calculated with or without VFA results.Main Outcomes and Measures Incident fractures and death were ascertained using linked population-based health care provincial data. Cumulative incidence curves for MOF and hip fracture were constructed, including competing mortality, to predict the 10-year observed risk of fracture. The observed probability was compared with FRAX-predicted fracture probability with and without VFA results and recalibrated FRAX from derived multipliers.Results The full cohort of 11 766 individuals was randomly allocated to the development cohort (n = 7854; 7349 females [93.6%]; mean [SD] age, 75.7 [6.8] years) or the validation cohort (n = 3912; 3713 females [94.9%]; mean [SD] age, 75.5 [6.9] years). Over a mean (SD) observation time of 3.8 (2.3) years, with the longest observation at 7.5 years, FRAX was well calibrated in subgroups with negative VFA results. For individuals without a prior clinical fracture but with a positive VFA result, the 10-year FRAX-predicted MOF probability was 16.3% (95% CI, 15.7%-16.8%) without VFA information and 23.4% (95% CI, 22.7%-24.1%) with VFA information. The observed 10-year probabilities were 26.9% (95% CI, 26.0%-27.8%) and 11.2% (95% CI, 10.3%-12.1%), respectively, resulting in recalibration multipliers of 1.15 (95% CI, 0.87-1.43) for MOF and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.75-1.87) for hip fracture. For individuals with a prior clinical fracture and a positive VFA result, the 10-year FRAX-predicted probabilities were 25.0% (95% CI, 24.2%-25.7%) for MOF and 9.3% (95% CI, 8.7%-10.0%) for hip fracture. The observed 10-year probabilities were 38.1% (95% CI, 37.0%-39.1%) for MOF and 16.4% (95% CI, 15.4%-17.4%) for hip fracture, resulting in a recalibration multiplier of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96) for MOF and 1.76 (95% CI, 1.17-2.35) for hip fracture. Good calibration (>0.90) was confirmed using the derived multipliers in the validation cohort.Conclusions and Relevance Results of this prognostic study suggest that FRAX underestimated fracture risk in patients with VFA-identified fractures. Simple multipliers could recover FRAX calibration in individuals with VFA-identified fractures.
|
|
