排序方式: 共有37条查询结果,搜索用时 265 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Nan?Luo Ling-Huo?Chew Kok-Yong?Fong Dow-Rhoon?Koh Swee-Cheng?Ng Kam-Hon?Yoon Sheila?Vasoo Shu-Chuen?Li Julian?ThumbooEmail author 《Health and quality of life outcomes》2003,1(1):7
Background
Although multiple language versions of health-related quality of life instruments are often used interchangeably in clinical research, the measurement equivalence of these versions (especially using alphabet vs pictogram-based languages) has rarely been assessed. We therefore investigated the measurement equivalence of English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D, a widely used utility-based outcome instrument.Methods
In a cross-sectional study, either EQ-5D version was administered to consecutive outpatients with rheumatic diseases. Measurement equivalence of EQ-5D item responses and utility and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores between these versions was assessed using multiple regression models (with and without adjusting for potential confounding variables), by comparing the 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of score differences between these versions with pre-defined equivalence margins. An equivalence margin defined a magnitude of score differences (10% and 5% of entire score ranges for item responses and utility/EQ-VAS scores, respectively) which was felt to be clinically unimportant.Results
Sixty-six subjects completed the English and 48 subjects the Chinese EQ-5D. The 95%CI of the score differences between these versions overlapped with but did not fall completely within pre-defined equivalence margins for 4 EQ-5D items, utility and EQ-VAS scores. For example, the 95%CI of the adjusted score difference between these EQ-5D versions was -0.14 to +0.03 points for utility scores and -11.6 to +3.3 points for EQ-VAS scores (equivalence margins of -0.05 to +0.05 and -5.0 to +5.0 respectively).Conclusion
These data provide promising evidence for the measurement equivalence of English and Chinese EQ-5D versions.8.
9.
10.