Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2020
Agreement between the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) interview and a paper-administered adaption.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions. To apply this method in clinical trials, a paper-administered alternative would be of interest. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze the agreement between the SEIQoL-DW and a paper questionnaire version (SEIQoL-PF/G).
methodsIn a crossover design, both measures were completed in a random sequence. 104 patients at a heart surgery hospital in Germany were randomly assigned to receive either the SEIQoL-DW or the SEIQoL-PF/G as the first measurement in the sequence. Patients were approached on their earliest stable day after surgery. The average time between both measurements was 1 day (mean 1.3; SD 0.8). Agreement regarding the indices, ratings, and weightings of nominated life areas (cues) was explored using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Agreement of the SEIQoL indices was defined as acceptable if the LoA did not exceed a threshold of 10 scale points. Data from n = 99 patients were included in the agreement analysis.
resultsBoth measures led to similarly nominated cues. The most frequently nominated cues were "physical health" and "family". In the Bland-Altman plot, the indices showed a mean of differences of 2 points (95% CI, - 1 to 6). The upper LoA showed a difference of 36 points (95% CI, 30 to 42), and the lower LoA showed a difference of - 31 points (95% CI, - 37 to - 26). Thus, the LoAs and confidence intervals exceeded the predefined threshold. The Bland-Altman plots for the cue levels and cue weights showed similar results. The SEIQoL-PF/G version showed a tendency for equal weighting of cues, while the weighting procedure of the SEIQoL-DW led to greater variability.
conclusionsFor cardiac surgery patients, use of the current version of the SEIQoL-PF/G as a substitute for the SEIQoL-DW is not recommended. The current questionnaire weighting method seems to be unable to distinguish weighting for different cues. Therefore, the further design of a weighting method without interviewer support as a paper-administered measure of individual quality of life is desirable.
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.