Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28849311›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2018

Psychometric validation of the SF-36

Aaron Yarlas, Martha Bayliss, Joseph C Cappelleri, Stephen Maher, Andrew G Bushmakin, Lea Ann Chen, Alireza Manuchehri, Paul Healey

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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D): Development and Evolution.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Aaron YarlasOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA. ayarlas@qualitymetric.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4600-259X
Martha BaylissOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA.
Joseph C CappelleriPfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.
Stephen MaherOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA.
Andrew G BushmakinPfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.
Lea Ann ChenNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Alireza ManuchehriPfizer Ltd, Walton Oaks, Augusta, UK.
Paul HealeyPfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo conduct a systematic literature review of the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the SF-36

methodsWe performed a systematic search of electronic medical databases to identify published peer-reviewed studies which reported scores from the eight scales and/or two summary measures of the SF-36 collected from adult patients with UC. Study findings relevant to reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were reviewed.

resultsData were extracted and summarized from 43 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Convergent validity was supported by findings that 83% (197/236) of correlations between SF-36 scales and measures of disease symptoms, disease activity, and functioning exceeded the prespecified threshold (r ≥ |0.40|). Known-groups validity was supported by findings of clinically meaningful differences in SF-36 scores between subgroups of patients when classified by disease activity (i.e., active versus inactive), symptom status, and comorbidity status. Responsiveness was supported by findings of clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores following treatment in non-comparative trials, and by meaningfully larger improvements in SF-36 scores in treatment arms relative to controls in randomized controlled trials. The sole study of SF-36 reliability found evidence supporting internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.70) for all SF-36 scales and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.70) for six of eight scales.

conclusionsEvidence from this systematic literature review indicates that the SF-36 is reliable, valid, and responsive when used with UC patients, supporting the inclusion of the SF-36 as an endpoint in clinical trials for this patient population.

Indexed as

AdultAgedColitis, UlcerativeFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsPsychometric validationSF-36Systematic reviewUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

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.