Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22975926›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2013

What is the use? Application of the short form (SF) questionnaires for the evaluation of treatment effects.

Aline J Pelle, Nina Kupper, Floortje Mols, Peter de Jonge

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Asymmetric responsiveness of disability and health-related quality of life to improvement versus decline in Parkinson's disease.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aline J PelleDepartment of Medical Psychology & Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Nina Kupper
Floortje Mols
Peter de Jonge
Tilburg University · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth status has evolved as a clinical outcome measure that is of great interest in medical care. However, there is still debate about the appropriateness of scoring algorithms for the often used short form questionnaires. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the consequences of the traditional scoring procedure based on orthogonal factor rotation for clinical applications by (a) re-evaluating the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of antidepressants in improving health status in cardiac patients and (b) comparing empirical evidence on depression and health status using orthogonal and oblique factor rotation (alternative scoring method) in a community sample and a heart failure (HF) sample.

methodsThis is a systematic literature review and cross-sectional analysis among 1,598 community sample participants and 282 HF patients.

resultsOrthogonal rotation artificially forces the mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) to be unrelated, which is illustrated in two of the three included RCTs. Two RCTs showed improvements in MCS, but no improvement in PCS over time. Cross-sectional analysis in the two datasets showed that employing the alternative scoring algorithm resulted in higher negative correlations of MCS and PCS with depression, and a gradual decline in MCS with each decile of decline in PCS.

conclusionOur data showed that appropriate carefulness is needed when calculating and interpreting summary scores. The traditional scoring algorithm seems inappropriate to objectively evaluate the effects of interventions on both the MCS and the PCS. Awareness in the design and evaluation of interventions using these outcomes is warranted.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsAdultAgedAlgorithmsAntidepressive AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesDepressionFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHealth StatusHealth SurveysHeart FailureHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID22975926
OpenAlexW2023851377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.