There was no consistent relationship with factors such as disease-specific or generic instrument or the number of response options .
Negative changes were not associated with larger ESs .
Population -based estimation procedures and brief follow-up were associated with smaller ESs , and acute conditions with larger ESs .
Background .
A number of studies have computed the minimally important difference ( MID ) for health-related quality of life instruments .
To determine whether there is consistency in the magnitude of MID estimates from different instruments .
Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.
PURPOSE We report on a clinical trial developed to compare four different instruments that provide overall quality -of-life ( QOL ) scores , ranging from a simple , one-item instrument to more detailed instruments . Two issues addressed were ( 1 ) Will QOL tools suffer from missing data when used in a community-based cooperative group setting ? , and ( 2 ) Are there additional data generated by a more detailed multiitem instrument over that provided by a single-item global QOL question ? MATERIAL S AND METHODS A four-arm r and omized trial was design ed to compare four instruments that provide overall QOL scores in patients with advanced colorectal cancer . Patients and physicians completed the single-item Spitzer Uniscale ( UNISCALE ) at baseline and monthly . Patients were r and omly assigned to complete , in addition , either the 22-item Functional Living Index-Cancer ( FLIC ) , the five-item Spitzer QOL index ( QLI ) , a picture-face scale ( PICT ) , or nothing else . RESULTS A total of 128 patients were r and omized . Greater than 90 % complete QOL data were obtained . There was strong correlation , concordance , and criterion-related validity among all four patient-completed tools . The UNISCALE had a greater decrease over time than did the FLIC ( P=.005 ) , which suggests a greater sensitivity ; the UNISCALE was similar to the QLI and the PICT in this regard . Physicians provided lower UNISCALE scores than patients . Results supported the hypothesis that QOL is prognostic for survival . CONCLUSION Patients can effectively complete QOL tools in a cooperative group setting with proper education of health care providers and patients . A simple single-item tool ( UNISCALE ) appears to be appropriate to obtain a measure of overall QOL
There was no consistent relationship with factors such as disease-specific or generic instrument or the number of response options .
Negative changes were not associated with larger ESs .
Population -based estimation procedures and brief follow-up were associated with smaller ESs , and acute conditions with larger ESs .
Background .
A number of studies have computed the minimally important difference ( MID ) for health-related quality of life instruments .
To determine whether there is consistency in the magnitude of MID estimates from different instruments .