Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29663258›Full record

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

A meta-analytic review of measurement equivalence study findings of the SF-36® and SF-12® Health Surveys across electronic modes compared to paper administration.

Michelle K White, Stephen M Maher, Avery A Rizio, Jakob B Bjorner

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisReview
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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Impact of strength training of large muscle groups on quality of life.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2025
    Article
  10. Quality of Life for Males With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Converting PROMISHealth and quality of life outcomes · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Michelle K WhiteOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA. mwhite@qualitymetric.com.
Stephen M MaherOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA.
Avery A RizioOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA.
Jakob B BjornerOptum, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI, 02919, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures originally developed for paper administration are increasingly being administered electronically in clinical trials and other health research studies. Three published meta-analyses of measurement equivalence among paper and electronic modes aggregated findings across hundreds of PROs, but there has not been a similar meta-analysis that addresses a single PRO, partly because there are not enough published measurement equivalence studies using the same PRO. Because the SF-36

methodsA literature search of several medical databases used search terms for variations of "SF-36" or "SF-12" and "equivalence" in the title or abstract of English language publications. The eight scale scores and two summary measures of the SF-36 and SF-12 were transformed to norm-based scores (NBS) using developer guidelines. A threshold of within ± 2 NBS points was set as the margin of equivalence. Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used.

resultsTwenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that mean differences across domains and summary scores ranged from 0.01 to 0.39 while estimates of agreement ranged from 0.76 to 0.91, all well within the equivalence threshold. Moderator analyses showed that time between administration, survey language, and type of electronic device did not influence equivalence.

conclusionsThe results of the meta-analysis support equivalence of paper-based and electronic versions of the SF-36 and SF-12 across a variety of disease populations, countries, and electronic modes.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresFemaleHealth SurveysHumansLanguageMalePaperQuality of LifeSoftwareSurveys and QuestionnairesElectronicePROEquivalenceMeasurementMeta-analysisPatient-reported outcomesPROSF-36

Identifiers

PMID29663258
PMCPMC5997721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.