Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:40:40.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2009

By
Dennis A. Revicki Ph.D.
Edited by
Joseph Lipscomb ,
Carolyn C. Gotay  and
Claire Snyder
Dennis A. Revicki Ph.D.
Affiliation:
Vice President and Director MEDTAP International, Bethesda, MD
Joseph Lipscomb
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Carolyn C. Gotay
Affiliation:
Cancer Research Center, Hawaii
Claire Snyder
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

More than 50 years ago, clinical researchers in oncology recognized that the outcomes of chemotherapy extended beyond survival and other clinical endpoints. The earliest effort to systematically measure the impact of cancer therapy on patient functional status was by Karnofsky et al. During the past 30 years, significant advances have been made in understanding the impact of cancer and oncology treatments on patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes.– HRQOL measures extend patient outcomes assessment beyond survival, toxicity, and clinical efficacy and reflect the patient's perspective on the impact of disease and its treatment on functioning and well-being. Frequently, an important objective for evaluating HRQOL outcomes is demonstrating the value of new oncology treatments relative to other competing treatments. The pharmaceutical industry's intent in funding clinical trials with HRQOL measures is to achieve labeling and/or promotional claims for marketing to physicians, pharmacists, health care decision makers, and patients.,

Although HRQOL outcomes have been used in evaluating oncology treatments, the use of these endpoints in drug development and the regulatory approval process is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged the measurement of survival, symptom, and HRQOL endpoints in evaluating oncology treatments. During the past 17 years, no new cancer chemotherapy has been approved based primarily on HRQOL endpoints., More recent statements by FDA officials continue to express skepticism about the value of HRQOL in evaluating oncology treatments.

Type
Chapter
Information
Outcomes Assessment in Cancer
Measures, Methods and Applications
 , pp. 550 - 567
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barofsky, I., Sugarbaker, P. (1990). Cancer. In Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials, ed. B. Spilker, pp. 419–40. New York: Raven
Karnofsky, D., Abelman, W., Craver, L.et al. (1948). The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinomaCancer 1:634–563.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiebert, G., Curran, D., Aaronson, N. (1998). Quality of life as an endpoint in EORTC clinical trialsStatistics in Medicine 17:561–93.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litwin, Talcott, this volume, Chapter 6
Ganz, Goodwin, this volume, Chapter 5
Moinpour, Provenzale, this volume, Chapter 8
Earle, Weeks, this volume, Chapter 7
Osoba, this volume, Chapter 19
Leidy, N., Revicki, D., Geneste, B. (1999). Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotionValue in Health 2:113–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revicki, D., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D.et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United StatesQuality of Life Research 9:887–900CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. R., Temple, R. (1985). Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugsCancer Treatment Reports 69:1155–7Google ScholarPubMed
Beitz, J. (1999). Quality-of-life end points in oncology drug trialsOncology 13:1439–42Google ScholarPubMed
F-D-C Reports. (2002). Oncologic NDA approval standards: FDA asks “what stands behind” response rate. Pink Sheet 64:34–5
American Society for Clinical Oncology (1996). Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelinesJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:671–9CrossRef
Berzon, R. (1998). Understanding and using health-related quality of life instruments within clinical research studies. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 3–18. New York: Oxford University Press
Revicki, D. A. (2000). The added value of health-related quality of life evidence: is safety and efficacy enough? Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Food and Drug Administration (1998). Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs — Designation, Development and Application Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004
Aaronson, N., Cull, A., Kaasa, S. et al. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessments in oncology: an update. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 179–90. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Cella, D., Bonomi, A. (1996). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) quality of life measurement system. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 203–14. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Clinch, J. J. (1996). The Functional Living Index-Cancer: ten years later. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 215–25. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Padilla, G., Grant, M., Ferrell, B., Presant, C. (1996). Quality of Life-Cancer. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 301–8. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Osoba, D. (1999). What has been learned from measuring health-related quality of life in clinical oncology?European Journal of Cancer 35:1565–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osoba, D. (1999). Quality of life instruments in oncologyEuropean Journal of Cancer 35:1571–80Google Scholar
McCabe, M. S., Shoemaker, D., Temple, R. J. et al. (1996). Regulatory perspectives on quality of life issues. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 569–74. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Beitz, J., Gnecco, C., Justice, R. (1996). Quality of life endpoints in cancer clinical trialsJournal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 20:7–9Google Scholar
Bergner, M. (1989). Quality of life, health status, and clinical researchMedical Care 27(Suppl.):S148–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrans, this volume, Chapter 2
Patrick, D. L., Erickson, P. (1993). Health Status and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press
Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., Olweny, C. L. (1996). Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 11–24. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
World Health Organization (1958). The First Ten Years of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization
Cella, D., Tulsky, D. (1990). Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspectsOncology 5:29–38Google Scholar
Gill, T. M., Feinstein, A. R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurementsJournal of the American Medical Association 272:619–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leplege, A., Hunt, S. (1997). The problem of quality of life in medicineJournal of the American Medical Association 278:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K.et al. for the PRO Harmonization Group (2004). Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health 6(5):522–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, 1997. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004
Smith, N. D. (1993). Quality of life studies from the perspective of an FDA reviewing statisticianDrug Information Journal 27:617–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. (2000). Guidance to Industry: Content and Format of the Adverse Reactions Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004
Morris, L. A., Miller, D. (2002). The regulation of patient reported outcome claims: need for a flexible standardValue in Health 5:372–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, L. B. (2000). Acceptable evidence for pharmaceutical advertising and labeling. Presented at Drug Information Association Workshop on Pharmacoeconomic and Quality of Life Labeling and Marketing Claims. New Orleans, Louisiana
Federal Trade Commission. (1984). Policy statement regarding Advertising Substantiation ProgramFederal Register 49(50):30999–1001
Santanello, N. C., Baker, D., Cappelleri, J. C.et al. (2002). Regulatory issues for health-related quality of life — PhRMA Health Outcomes Committee Workshop, 1999Value in Health 5:14–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revicki, D. A., Rothman, M., Luce, B. (1992). Health-related quality of life assessment and the pharmaceutical industryPharmacoeconomics 1:394–408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. (2001). National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:979–89CrossRef
Morris, L. A., Beckett, T., Lechter, K. (1996). A marketing perspective: theoretical underpinnings. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, (2nd Edition), ed. B. Spilker, pp. 541–8. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven
Jack, W. (1991). Pharmaceutical differentiation through quality of life measurement: a case studyJournal of Pharmaceutical Marketing Management 10:33–53Google Scholar
Burke, L. B. (2000). Regulatory issues in the use of patient reported outcomes in drug labeling and advertising. Presented at the Health-Related Quality of Life Workshop. Rockville, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration
Camptosar (Irinotecan hydrochloride) Injection Package Insert. Kalamazoo, MI: Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, 2000
Cunningham, D. C., Pyrhonen, S., James, R. D.et al. (1998). Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancerLancet 352:1413–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rougier, P., Cutsem, E., Bajetta, E.et al. (1998). Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancerLancet 352:1407–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casodex®(Bicalutamide tablets) Package Insert. Wilmington, DE: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, 2000
Schellhammer, P., Sharifi, R., Block, N.et al. (1996). Maximal androgen blockade for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: outcome of a controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy. Casodex Combination Study GroupUrology 47(1A Suppl):54–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schellhammer, P., Sharifi, R., Block, N.et al. (1995). A controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy, in patients with advanced prostate cancer Casodex Combination Study Group. Urology 45:745–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gemzar (Gemcitabine HCI) for Injection Package Insert. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company, 1998
Cardenal, F., Lopez-Cabrerizo, M. P., Anton, A.et al. (1999). Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:12–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandler, A. B., Nemunaitis, J., Denham, C.et al. (2000). Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:122–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navelbine (vinorelbine tartrate) Injection Package Insert. Research Triangle Park, NC: GlaxoWellcome Inc., 2000
LeChavalier, T., Brisgand, D., Douillard, J. Y.et al. (1994). Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patientsJournal of Clinical Oncology 12:360–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wozniak, A. J., Crowley, J. L., Balcerzak, S. et al. (1998). Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2459–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, J., O'Rourke, M., Schiller, J. H.et al. (1996). Randomized trial of vinorelbine compared with flourouracil plus leucovorin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:2774–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taxol® (paclitaxel) Injection Package Insert. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2000
Bonomi, P., Kim, K. M., Fairclough, D.et al. (2000). Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trialJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:623–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giaccone, G., Splinter, T. A. W., Debruyne, C.et al. (1998). Randomized study of paclitaxel-cisplatin versus cisplatin-teniposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2133–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thyrogen (thyrotropin alfa) for Injection Package Insert. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme Corporation, 1999
Haugen, B. R., Pacini, F., Reiners, C.et al. (1999). A comparison of recombinant human thyrotropin and thyroid hormone withdrawal for the detection of thyroid remnant or cancerJournal of Clinical Epidemiology and Metabolism 81:3877–85Google Scholar
Ladenson, P. W., Braverman, L. E., Mazzaferri, E. L.et al. (1997). Comparison of administration of recombinant human thyrotropin with withdrawal of thyroid hormone for radioactive iodine scanning in patients with thyroid carcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine 337:888–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aredia (pamidronate disodium) for Injection Package Insert. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceutical Co., 1999
Theriault, R. L., Lipton, A., Hortobagyi, G. N.et al. (1999). Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: a randomized, placebo-controlled trialJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:846–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hortobagyi, G. N., Theriault, R. L., Lipton, A.et al. (1998).Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronateJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:2038–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, M. T. (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30Quality of Life Research 5:555–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannock, I. F., Osoba, D., Stockler, M. R.et al. (1996). Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end pointsJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:1756–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osoba, D., Tannock, I. F., Ernst, S.et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated by prednisone alone or mitoxantrone and prednisoneJournal of Clinical Oncology 17:1654–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demetri, G. D., Kris, M., Wade, J.et al. (1998). Quality-of-life benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin alpha is independent of disease response or tumor type: results from a prospective community oncology studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:3412–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, K. M., Loprinzi, C. L., Shaw, E. G.et al. (1996). Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of cisplatin and etoposide plus megestrol acetate in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:135–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simons, J. P. F., Aaronson, N. K., Vansteenkiste, J. F.et al. (1996). Effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate on appetite, weight, and quality of life in advanced-stage non-hormone-sensitive cancer: a placebo-controlled multicentre studyJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:1077–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruera, E., Ernst, S., Hagen, N.et al. (1998). Effectiveness of megestrol acetate in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized, double-blind, crossover studyCancer Prevention and Control 2:74–8Google ScholarPubMed
Medical Research Council Working Party (1993). A randomized trial of three or six courses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and vincristine or six courses of etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer. II: quality of lifeBritish Journal of Cancer 68:1157–66CrossRef
Osoba, D., Brada, M., Yung, W. K.et al. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients treated with temozolomide versus procarbazine for recurrent glioblastoma multiformeJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:1481–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osoba, D., Brada, M., Yung, W. K.et al. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma during treatment with temozolomideEuropean Journal of Cancer 36:1788–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, M. T., Slevin, M. L., Kerr, D. J.et al. (1996). Randomized trial assessing the addition of interferon alpa-2a to flourouracil and leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:2282–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osoba, D., Northfelt, D. W., Budd, D. W.et al. (2001). Effect of treatment on health-related quality of life in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma: a randomized trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristineCancer Investigation 19:573–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, A., Gebski, V., Bishop, J. F.et al. (1987). Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategiesNew England Journal of Medicine 317:1490–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannock, I. F., Boyd, N. F., DeBoer, G.et al. (1988). A randomized trial of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 6:1377–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fairclough, D. L., Fetting, J. H., Cella, D.et al. (1999). Quality of life and quality adjusted survival for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapyQuality of Life Research 8:723–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, M., Guyatt, G., Gent, M.et al. (1988). Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trialsJournal of Clinical Oncology 6:1798–810CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaasa, S., Mastekaasea, A., Lund, E. (1989). Prognostic factors for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer, limited diseaseRadiotherapy Oncology 15:235–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganz, P., Lee, J., Siau, J. (1991). Quality of life assessment: an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancerCancer 67:3131–53.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, A., Grebski, V., Signorini, D.et al. (1992). Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 10:1833–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earlam, S., Glover, C., Fordy, C.et al. (1996). Relation between tumor size, quality of life, and survival in patients with colorectal liver metastasesJournal of Clinical Oncology 14:171–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, A., Porzsolt, F., Osoba, D. (1997). Quality of life in oncology practice: prognostic value of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced malignancyEuropean Journal of Cancer 33:1025–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dancey, J., Zee, B., Osoba, D.et al. (1997). Quality of life scores: an independent prognostic variable in a general population of cancer patients receiving chemotherapyQuality of Life Research 6:151–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, A., Hurny, C., Peterson, H.et al. (2000). Quality-of-life scores predict outcome in metastatic but not early breast cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 18:3768–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendijk, J. A., Aaronson, N. K., ten Velde, G. P.et al. (2000). Pretreatment quality of life of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients referred for primary radiotherapyActa Oncology 39:949–58Google ScholarPubMed
Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Alderson, D. (2001). The prognostic value of quality of life scores during treatment for oesophageal cancerGut 49:227–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R.et al. (2001). Oncologists' use of quality of life information: results from a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physiciansQuality of Life Research 10:1–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chassany, O., Sagnier, P., Marquis, P.et al. for the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group (2002). Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life — a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory processDrug Information Journal 36:209–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteriaQuality of Life Research 11:193–205CrossRef
Hays, R. D., Anderson, R. T., Revicki, D. A. (1998). Assessing reliability and validity of measurements in clinical trials. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, eds. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 169–82. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45:1341–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, G., Osoba, D., Wu, A., Wyrwich, K., Norman, G. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measuresMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:371–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, D., Bullinger, M., Scott, C.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Group versus individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of lifeMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:384–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprangers, M., Moinpour, C., Moynihan, T.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Assessing meaningful change over time in quality of life: a users' guide for cliniciansMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:561–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloan, J., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J.et al. and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scoresMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:479–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambleton, R., Robin, F., Xing, D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, eds. H. Tinsley, S. Brown. San Diego: Academic PressCrossRef
Embretson, S., Reise, S. (2001). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Reise, this volume, Chapter 21
Hambleton, this volume, Chapter 22
Wilson, this volume, Chapter 23
Hays, R., Morales, L., Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st centuryMedical Care 38(Suppl. II):II-28–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fairclough, D. (1998). Methods of analysis for longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R.Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 227–45. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Curran, D., Fayers, P., Molenberghs, G. et al. (1998). Analysis of incomplete quality of life data in clinical trials. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed. M. Staquet, R. Hays, P. Fayers, pp. 249–80. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Fayers, P., Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Fairclough, D. (2002). Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall/CRC Press
Mesbah, M., Cole, B. (ed.) (2002). Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies: Design, Measurement, and Analysis. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. (1997). Applications of random-effects pattern mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studiesPsychological Methods 2:64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revicki, D., Gold, K., Buckman, D.et al. (2001). Imputing physical function scores missing owing to mortality: results of a simulation comparing multiple techniquesMedical Care 39:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, B., Shih, Y. C. T., Claxton, A. (2001). Special Section: Bayesian approaches to technology assessment and decision makingInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17(1):1–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×