ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2013
Visual analogue scales: scale recalibration by patients with dementia and their proxies.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of multiple oral doses of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in older persons with dementia.Psychopharmacology · 2015Trial
- A personhood and citizenship training workshop for care home staff to potentially increase wellbeing of residents with dementia: intervention development and feasibility testing of a cluster randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Arts-based interventions for people living with dementia: Measuring 'in the moment' wellbeing with the Canterbury Wellbeing Scales.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- The Parkinson's disease e-diary: Developing a clinical and research tool for the digital age.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisual analogue scales (VAS) are often used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, when such scales contain ambiguous anchors like "best imaginable health state," they produce answers that are difficult to interpret, as such anchors are interpreted differently by respondents of different age. This phenomenon that people's interpretation of subjective response scales changes in response to changing circumstances is known as scale recalibration. The current study attempts to investigate whether scale recalibration in a patient sample with cognitive limitations and proxies differs from the general population.
methodsThe participants in the current study were 151 pairs of community-dwelling patients with dementia and their proxies. They were administered three VASs with different upper anchors; (A) "best imaginable health state," (B) "best imaginable health state for someone your age," and (C) "best imaginable health state for a 25-year-old." From literature, we inferred a conceptual model for the general population that predicts the ordinal relationship of the VASs to be B ≥ A ≥ C. This rank order is tested by repeated measure ANOVA's in the aforementioned populations.
resultsVAS scores of patients with dementia were in line with the conceptual model. Proxy VAS scores for assessing patient HRQoL were not in line with the model: A > B > C. In addition, proxy VAS scores for assessing their own health were not in line with the model: A > B > C.
conclusionPatients with dementia use the VAS in a similar way to the general population. Proxies assessing either patients or themselves differ from the general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.