hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Testing the SF-36 in Parkinson's disease. Implications for reporting rating scale data
Lund University.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2174-372X
University Hospital, Lund.
Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth.
2008 (English)In: Journal of Neurology, ISSN 0340-5354, E-ISSN 1432-1459, Vol. 255, no 2, p. 246-254Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Rating scales are increasingly the primary outcome measures in clinical trials. However, clinically meaningful interpretation of such outcomes requires that the scales used satisfy basic requirements (scaling assumptions) within the data. These are rarely tested. The SF-36 is the most widely used patient-reported rating scale. Its scaling assumptions have been challenged in neurological disorders but remain untested in Parkinson's disease (PD). We therefore tested these by analyzing SF-36 data from 202 PD patients (54% men; mean age 70) to determine if it was legitimate to report scores for the eight SF-36 scales and its two summary measures of physical and mental health, and if those scores were reliable and valid. Results supported generation of the eight SF-36 scale scores and their reliabilities were generally good (> or = 0.74 in all but one instance). However, we found limitations that question the meaningfulness of four scales and other limitations that restrict the ability of four scales to detect change in clinical trials (floor/ceiling effects, 19.6-46.2 %). The two SF-36 summary measures were not found to be valid indicators of physical and mental health. This study demonstrates important limitations of the SF-36 and provides the first evidence-based guidelines for its use in PD. The limitations of the SF-36 demonstrated here may explain some unexpected findings in previous studies. However, the main implication is a general one for the clinical research community regarding requirements for reporting rating scale endpoints. Specifically, investigators should routinely provide scale evaluations based on data from within major clinical trials.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 255, no 2, p. 246-254
Keywords [en]
clinical trials, outcome research, quality of life, Parkinson's disease
National Category
Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-12359DOI: 10.1007/s00415-008-0708-yISI: 000253641000014PubMedID: 18204806OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-12359DiVA, id: diva2:732962
Available from: 2014-07-07 Created: 2014-07-07 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hagell, Peter

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagell, Peter
In the same journal
Journal of Neurology
Neurology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 19 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf