PubMed · 15789101
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
F J T Burke, M Busby. 2005-03-26. Indices.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4812227
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is known to vary by socio-economic group. A review of studies published by 1995 showed this association to be universal and resilient to the many different ways in which socio-economic status was determined. Differences were most commonly attributed to differences in stage of disease at diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of research published since 1995 examining the association of cancer survival with socio-economic variables. RESULTS: An association between socio-economic status and cancer survival has continued to be demonstrated in the last decade of research. Stage at diagnosis and differences in treatment have been cited as the most important explanatory factors. Some research has evaluated the psychosocial elements of this association. CONCLUSIONS: Socio-economic differences in cancer survival are now well documented. The explanatory power of stage at diagnosis, although great, should not detract from the evidence of differential treatment between social groups. Neither factor can completely explain the observed socio-economic differences in survival, however, and the importance of differences in tumour and patient factors should now be quantified.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To review evidence relating to the measurement properties for all disease-specific, multi-item, patient-assessed health instruments in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Systematic literature searches were made to identify instruments, using predefined criteria relating to reliability, validity, responsiveness and precision. RESULTS: Twelve AS-specific and three arthritis-specific instruments met the inclusion criteria. Three AS-specific instruments that measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) were reviewed. The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and the Dougados Functional Index (DFI) had the greatest amount of evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness across a range of settings. Four instruments lacked evidence for test-retest or internal consistency reliability. Most were assessed for validity through comparisons with other instruments, global judgements of health, mobility or clinical and sociodemographic variables. Most were assessed for responsiveness through mean score changes. Three instruments lacked evidence of responsiveness. CONCLUSION: This review provides a contribution to AS assessment. AS-specific multi-item measures specific to the assessment of pain, stiffness, fatigue and global health were not identified; where assessed, these domains were largely measured with single-item visual analogue scales. Single items may provide a limited reflection of these important domains. The BASFI and DFI remain the instruments of choice for functional assessment. HRQL is recommended as a core assessment domain. Further concurrent evaluation is recommended.