A prospective global measure, the Punum Ladder, provides more valid assessments of quality of life than a retrospective transition measure

Fletcher, Kenneth E.; French, Cynthia T.; Irwin, Richard S.; Corapi, Kristin M.; Norman, Geoffrey R.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.015

Cited by 51 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A significant limitation of patient reported anchors such as GRCQ or SF36 (Du Bois et al) is recall bias [3]. They are more likely to reflect current health status than change from a previous clinic visit [20]. The average time between assessments in our study was long, 9 months, similar to the study by Du Bois et al (11 months) making recall bias a possibility [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

The minimal important difference of the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD) and forced vital capacity in interstitial lung disease

Patel

Siegert

Keir

et al. 2013

Respiratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health status and forced vital capacity (FVC) are widely used outcome measures of interstitial lung disease (ILD) but there is a paucity of studies reporting the minimal clinically meaningful change in these parameters. A study was undertaken to assess the minimal important difference (MID) of an ILD specific health status questionnaire, the King's Brief ILD questionnaire (K-BILD) and that of FVC in a range of ILDs. 57 patients with ILD (17 idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; IPF) completed the K-BILD (score range 0-100) at 2 separate clinic visits. Patients underwent spirometry at both visits. The MID was determined by a range of distribution methods (Standard error of mean: SEM and 0.3× Effect size: ES) and anchor based methods (objective: FVC and subjective: global rating of change questionnaires, GRCQ). The MID was derived by calculating an average of all methods. Health status was reduced at baseline in all patients, mean (SD) K-BILD total score 62(23). The average MID for K-BILD total score incorporating all methods was an 8 unit change (range 6-10). The average MID for FVC was a 6% change of baseline (range 4-7%). The K-BILD is a responsive patient reported outcome measure for patients with ILD. It can potentially be used to assess patients in the clinic and evaluate the response to therapy. The MID of the K-BILD total score is 8 units. The MID for FVC for a range of ILDs was 6%, similar to that reported recently for patients with IPF. Our findings will facilitate the clinical interpretation of health status and FVC data in ILD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

The minimal important difference of the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD) and forced vital capacity in interstitial lung disease

Patel

Siegert

Keir

et al. 2013

Respiratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neuromodulatory therapies: this group included therapies with known action on neural pathways, such as amitriptyline, gabapentin, and morphine (Table 8). 37,38 4. Other therapies (Table 7): esomeprazole, erythromycin, ibuprofen, and ipratropium.…”

Section: Inhaled Corticosteroids (Ics): This Strategy Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Asthma was excluded by physician Idiopathic chronic cough 1 study 20,25 1 SR 32 Chronic cough of unknown etiology 3 studies 26,36,37 Chronic treatment-resistant cough 1 study 25 Intractable chronic cough 1 study 25 Postviral vagal neuropathy 1 study 22 SR ¼ systematic review.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Unexplained Chronic Cough

Gibson

Wang²,

McGarvey

et al. 2016

Chest

Self Cite

267

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its internal consistency, repeatability and responsiveness have been reported. The MID is 13 units in chronic cough [23]. The CQLQ has also been utilised in clinical trials evaluating antitussive therapies [24].…”

Section: Quality Of Life Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How best to measure cough clinically

Birring

Spinou

2015

Current Opinion in Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is possible to measure cough by assessing its severity, frequency, intensity, associated urge and its impact on quality of life. Cough severity can simply be assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale. Cough frequency can be assessed objectively with cough frequency monitors. Validated cough monitors include the Leicester Cough Monitor and the VitaloJAK. Cough reflex sensitivity measurement is better used to investigate the mechanisms of action of antitussive medications, rather than assessing efficacy. Health-Related Quality of Life measures are available to assess the impact of cough; they include the validated Leicester Cough Questionnaire and Cough-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for adult patients. It is best to assess cough with a combination of subjective and objective tools, to capture its wide-ranging impact.

show abstract

A prospective global measure, the Punum Ladder, provides more valid assessments of quality of life than a retrospective transition measure

Cited by 51 publications

References 10 publications

The minimal important difference of the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD) and forced vital capacity in interstitial lung disease

The minimal important difference of the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD) and forced vital capacity in interstitial lung disease

Treatment of Unexplained Chronic Cough

How best to measure cough clinically

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About