This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Christoph Hürny, MD; Jürg Bernhard, PhD; Alan Coates, MD; Harriet F. Peterson, MS; Richard D. Gelber, PhD
for the International Breast Cancer Study Group Bern, Switzerland

JAMA. 1995;273(11):843.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In their critical and controversial appraisal of quality-of-life measurements, Drs Gill and Feinstein¹ recommend the use of global ratings by patients, because this approach can "reflect the disparate values and preferences of individual patients." This argument is particularly important in controlled clinical trials with quality-of-life end points for two reasons. Values and preferences may not just be different among individuals but also change within individuals over time and across different situations (eg, whether they are on or off treatment),² and values and preferences may also differ across the multiple cultural and social class groups often involved in clinical trials.^3,4

In a comparative clinical trial, of primary interest is the difference in quality of life between treatments. Quality of life is usually not comprehensively described; rather, treatments are compared with regard to their impact on patients' quality of life. A global rating may be sensitive . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Deputy Editor (West), and Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?