Measuring Change in Quality of Life: Bias in Prospective and Retrospective Evaluation
Measuring Change in Quality of Life: Bias in Prospective and Retrospective Evaluation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jval.2014.10.007
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Augustin, Matthias
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blome, Christine;Augustin, Matthias
目的：对健康相关生活质量（QOL）的治疗效果通常因其是前瞻性（治疗前后）还是回顾性（仅治疗后）测量而异。这两种方法可能会受到不同类型的偏倚的影响：前瞻性评估可能会因量表偏差（对反应量表的理解发生变化）而产生偏倚，回顾性评估可能会因回忆偏倚（对先前QOL的错误评估）而产生偏倚。研究方法：本文在分析相关文献的基础上，对生活质量前瞻性和回顾性测量中可能存在的偏倚以及这些偏倚在文献中的命名和定义进行了综述。结果：不同偏倚的定义不一致。许多作者没有清楚地区分测量偏差和真实变化。此外，有些人只考虑尺度重新校准或只考虑回忆偏差。结论：目前关于前瞻性和回顾性生活质量测量中的偏倚的讨论大多定义不清，特别是“反应偏移”和“回忆偏倚”，或者忽略了其中一种可能的偏倚。我们建议对不同类型的偏倚进行更详细的定义，并建议在测量生活质量变化时考虑这两种偏倚。不同偏倚的相关性取决于研究的类型，因此前瞻性或回顾性评估可能更合适。(C)由Elsevier Inc.出版。国际药物经济学和结果研究学会（ISPOR）
Objectives: Treatment effects on health-related quality of life (QOL) often differ depending on whether they are measured prospectively (before and after treatment) or retrospectively (after treatment only). These two approaches can be subject to different sorts of bias: Prospective evaluations may be biased by scale recaljbration (a changed understanding of the response scale), and retrospective evaluations may be biased by recall bias (a wrong assessment of former QOL). Methods: On the basis of an analysis of the literature, we present an overview on possible biases in prospective and retrospective measurement of QOL and how these biases are named and defined in the literature. Results: The definitions of different biases are inconsistent. Many authors do not clearly distinguish measurement bias from true change. furthermore, some consider only scale recalibration or only recall bias. Conclusions: Much of the current discussion on bias in prospective and retrospective QOL measurement suffers from unclear definitions, especially of "response shift" and "recall bias," or from neglecting one of the possible biases. We suggest more elaborate definitions for different types of bias and recommend taking both kinds of bias into consideration when measuring change in QOL. The relevance of the different biases depends on the type of study, and so either prospective or retrospective assessment may be more appropriate. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).