4.6 Article

A Comparison of SF-36 and SF-12 Composite Scores and Subsequent Hospitalization and Mortality Risks in Long-Term Dialysis Patients

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07231009

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives: The Short Form 12 (SF-12) has not been validated for long-term dialysis patients. The study compared physical and mental component summary (PCS/MCS) scores from the SF-36 with those from the embedded SF-12 in a national cohort of dialysis patients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: All 44,395 patients who had scorable SF-36 and SF-12 from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006, and were treated at Fresenius Medical Care, North America facilities were included. Death and first hospitalization were followed for up to I year from the date of survey. Correlation and agreement were obtained between PCS-36 and PCS-12 and MCS-36 and MCS-12; then Cox models were constructed to compare associated hazard ratios (HRs) between them. Results: Physical and mental dimensions both exhibited excellent intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94. Each incremental point for both PCS-12 and PCS-36 was associated with a 2.4% lower adjusted HR of death and 0.4% decline in HR for first hospitalization (both P < 0.0001). Corresponding improvement in HR of death for each MCS point was 1.2% for MCS-12 and 1.3% for MCS-36, whereas both had similar 0.6% lower HR for hospitalization per point (all P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The use of the SF-12 alone or as part of a larger survey is valid in dialysis patients. Composite scores from the SF-12 and SF-36 have similar prognostic association with death and hospitalization risk. Prospective longitudinal studies of SF-12 surveys that consider responsiveness to specific clinical, situational, and interventional changes are needed in this population. Clin J Ain Soc Nephrol 5: 252-260, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.07231009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available