4.5 Review

The Clinical Importance of Quality-of-Life Scores in Patients with Skull Base Tumors: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

期刊

CURRENT ONCOLOGY REPORTS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 175-181

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-012-0222-3

关键词

Base of skull; Quality of life; Minimal clinically important difference; Anterior skull base surgery questionnaire; Head and neck cancers

类别

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation [1680/08]
  2. Israel Cancer Association [20090068]
  3. Israeli Ministry of Health [3-7355]
  4. Weizmann Institute-Sourasky Medical Center
  5. Tel Aviv Sourasky Intramural Grant
  6. ICRF [2011-601-BGPC]
  7. US-Israel Binational Science Foundation [2007312]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health-related quality of life (QOL) outcomes are frequently used by clinicians, patients, and researchers for assessing the effectiveness of an intervention. Small differences in QOL may be statistically significant but their clinical relevance remains undefined. The smallest changes in QOL scores of the anterior skull base surgery questionnaire (ASBS-Q) which could be considered clinically significant have not been delineated. Here we present a meta analysis and review of the literature of 273 patients undergoing skull base tumor resection. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as the smallest change in QOL which patients perceive as beneficial, was calculated using several statistical approaches. The MCID of the ASBS-Q was 0.4 (8%, score range 1-5). Various other instruments for QOL estimations revealed a larger range of MCID score (between 6.2%-17.5%) for the different QOL domains. The statistical analyses reveal that histology (benign vs malignant), time elapsed from surgery (< or a parts per thousand yen6 months), and surgical approach (open vs endoscopic) have significant clinical impact on different QOL domains. This paper brings level 1b evidence which demonstrates the importance of MCID as an adjunct for estimation of QOL in patients undergoing skull base surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据