Table 4:
Comparisons of responsiveness indices for QOL scales
|
4a: SRMs for each QOL
outcome measure | ||
|---|---|---|
| Scale | SRM For Intervention Group (95% CI) | SRM for Control Group (95% CI) |
| PDQ-39 | −0.30 (−0.49, −0.10)* | −0.002 (−0.22, 0.21) |
| PROMIS-29 | −0.25 (−0.45, −0.06)* | −0.07 (−0.28, 0.14) |
| QOL-AD | 0.13 (−0.09, 0.34) | −0.22 (−0.42, 0.02) |
| McGill QOL | 0.14 (−0.12, 0.35) | 0.13 (−0.09, 0.34) |
|
4b: Comparisons of
SRMs | ||
| Scales | Difference in SRM for Intervention Group (95% CI) | Difference in SRM for Control Group (95% CI) |
| PDQ-39 vs. PROMIS-29 | 0.04 (−0.13, 0.20) | −0.07 (−0.28, 0.13) |
| PDQ-39 vs. McGill | 0.18 (−0.05, 0.43) | −0.13 (−0.38, 0.12) |
| PDQ-39 vs. QOL-AD | 0.20 (−0.03, 0.42) | 0.23 (−0.03, 0.46) |
| PROMIS-29 vs. McGill | 0.15 (−0.05, 0.37) | −0.06 (−0.30, 0.19) |
| PROMIS-29 vs. QOL-AD | 0.13 (−0.10, 0.36) | 0.30 (0.05, 0.53)* |
| McGill vs. QOL-AD | 0.01 (−0.23, 0.21) | 0.34 (0.09, 0.58)* |
*
p=0.05
For PDQ-39 and PROMIS-29, negative change indicates improved QOL
For QOL-AD and McGill QOL, positive change indicates improved QOL
*
p=0.05
Note: Scales were reversed as necessary so positive numbers consistently refer to improvement in QOL.