Introduction

Rabin, Rosalind; Charro, Frank de; Szende, Ágota

doi:10.1007/1-4020-5511-0_1

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence was sought based on the EQ-5D instrument25 which is the preferred measure of NICE 12. Estimates are based on the combination of several sources and assumptions26–28 to give HRQoL weights by age, gender, initial CCS grade and treatment status (whether the patient had received a revascularisation procedure or medical management).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study

Walker

Girardin

McKenna

et al. 2013

Heart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study

Walker

Girardin

McKenna

et al. 2013

Heart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the second part of the instrument, the respondent evaluates his or her prevailing state of health by indicating a position on a visual analogue scale (VAS). This is a vertical, calibrated, line, anchored at 0, the “worst health state imaginable ”, and at 100, the “best health state imaginable ” [1]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the correspondence between EQ-5D health state description and VAS score vary by medical condition?

Whynes

2013

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument comprises a health state classification (health problems by severity in five domains), followed by an evaluation using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Despite the EQ-5D’s use in health technology assessment and as a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the correspondence between the two parts of the instrument remains ill-understood. In this paper, we consider whether the association between health state classification and VAS score might vary by medical condition.MethodsEQ-5D data collected for studies of patients in four different clinical conditions or circumstances (stroke, low back pain, colposcopic investigation or cytological surveillance) were pooled to generate a sample of 3,851 patient records. VAS scores were regressed on reported problem severities, with the inclusion of intercept and slope dummy variables specific to condition.ResultsThe regression model achieved a goodness-of-fit of 0.54. Given its structure and the significance of the coefficients, the proportion of VAS scores which differed by condition for the same health state varied between 33.3 and 88.5 per cent of possible states.ConclusionsMany of the patients with different medical conditions or in receipt of different interventions recorded different VAS valuations, in spite of ostensibly being in the same EQ-5D-defined health states. By implication, it is probable that the same state-to-state change would by valued differently by patients experiencing different conditions.

show abstract

“…A prospectively maintained data set of consecutive patients referred to the Royal London Hospital Lower Gastrointestinal Physiology Unit between February 2017 and September 2021 for investigation of symptoms of FI and/or chronic constipation was retrospectively analyzed. The data set consisted of information regarding patient demographics, including body mass index (BMI) measurement at the time of appointment, bowel symptoms, medical and surgical history, obstetric history, current and past medications, and self-rated health status (EQ-5D-3L, scored on a scale from 0 [worst imaginable health state] to 100 [best imaginable health state]) (32), all collected using a comprehensive bowel symptom questionnaire that also incorporates Rome IV criteria for FC (33) and FI (34), Cleveland Clinic constipation score (35) (maximum score of 30), and St Mark incontinence score (maximum score of 24) (36). All patients also underwent colonic and anorectal diagnostic testing according to international guidelines (37) as part of their standard clinical workup (see Supplement 1, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AJG/C992 for further details), including high-resolution anorectal manometry, endoanal ultrasonography, and rectal sensation to balloon distension.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Impact of Obesity in Patients With Disorders of Defecation: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1,155 Patients

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Obesity is a global epidemic. Its clinical impact on symptoms of fecal incontinence (FI) and/or constipation and underlying anorectal pathophysiology remains uncertain. Methods Cross-sectional study of consecutive patients meeting Rome IV criteria for FI and/or functional constipation, with data on body mass index (BMI), attending a tertiary center for investigation between 2017-2021. Clinical history, symptoms and anorectal physiologic test results were analyzed according to BMI categories. Results 1,155 patients (84% female) were included in the analysis (33.5% normal BMI; 34.8% overweight; 31.7% obese). Obese patients had higher odds of FI to liquid stools (69.9 vs. 47.8%, OR 1.96 [CI: 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs. 32.6%, OR 1.81 [1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs. 60.7%, OR 1.54 [1.11-2.14]) urge FI (63.4% vs 47.3%, OR 1.68 [1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs 9.7%, OR 2.18 [1.26-3.86]). Higher proportions of obese patients had Rome criteria-based FI or coexistent FI and functional constipation (37.3%, 50.3%) compared with overweight (33.8%, 44.8%) and normal BMI patients (28.9%, 41.1%). There was a positive linear association between BMI and anal resting pressure (β 0.45, R2 0.25, p=0.0003), though the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs. 20.6%, OR 2.62 [1.51-4.55]) compared with normal BMI patients. Conclusion Obesity impacts specific defecatory (mainly FI) and prolapse symptoms and pathophysiologic findings (higher anal resting pressure, significant rectocele). Prospective studies are required to determine if obesity is a modifiable risk factor for FI and constipation.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study

Does the correspondence between EQ-5D health state description and VAS score vary by medical condition?

The Clinical Impact of Obesity in Patients With Disorders of Defecation: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1,155 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About