Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20454862›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2010

The relationship between change in subjective outcome and change in disease: a potential paradox.

Wietske Kievit, Jos Hendrikx, Peep F M Stalmeier, Mart A F J van de Laar, Piet L C M Van Riel, Eddy M Adang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pitfalls in subgroup analysis based on growth mixture models: a commentary on Van Leeuwen et al. (2012).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wietske KievitDepartment of Rheumatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. w.kievit@reuma.umcn.nl
Jos Hendrikx
Peep F M Stalmeier
Mart A F J van de Laar
Piet L C M Van Riel
Eddy M Adang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResponse shift theory suggests that improvements in health lead patients to change their internal standards and re-assess former health states as worse than initially rated when using retrospective ratings via the then-test. The predictions of response shift theory can be illustrated using prospect theory, whereby a change in current health causes a change in reference frame. Therefore, if health deteriorates, the former health state will receive a better rating, whereas if it improves, the former health state will receive a worse rating.

objectiveTo explore the predictions of response shift and prospect theory by relating subjective change to objective change.

methodsBaseline and 3-month follow-up data from a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients (N = 197) starting on TNFalpha-blocking agents were used. Objective disease change was classified according to a disease-specific clinical outcome measure (DAS28). Visual analogue scales (VAS) for general health (GH) and pain were used as self-reported measures. Three months after starting on anti-TNFalpha, patients used the then-test to re-rate their baseline health with regard to general health and pain. Differences between then-test value and baseline values were calculated and tested between improved, non-improved and deteriorated patients by the Student t-test.

resultsAt 3 months, 51 (25.9%) patients had good improvement in health, 83 (42.1%) had moderate improvement, and 63 (32.0%) had no improvement or deteriorated in health. All patients no matter whether they improved, did not improve, or even became worse rated their health as worse retrospectively. The difference between the then-test rating and the baseline value was similarly sized in all groups.

conclusionMore positive ratings of retrospective health are independent of disease change. This suggests that patients do not necessarily change their standards in line with their disease change, and therefore it is inappropriate to use the then-test to correct for such a change. If a then-test is used to correct for shifts in internal standards, it might lead to the paradoxical result that patients who do not improve or even deteriorate increase significantly on self-reported health and pain. An alternative explanation for differences in retrospective and prospective ratings of health is the implicit theory of change which is more successful in explaining our results than prospect theory.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedArthritis, RheumatoidBiological FactorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaBiological FactorsTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID20454862
PMCPMC2923719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.