Quality of Life Research

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 27–32 | Cite as

Longitudinal sensitivity of generic and specific health measures in chronic sinusitis

  • R. E. Gliklich
  • J. M. Hilinski
Research Papers


The utility of reliable health measures for longitudinal studies in chronic sinusitis depends on their ability to detect clinically relevant change. Sixtythree patients with chronic sinusitis were evaluated before and three months after ethmoid sinus surgery using the Chronic Sinusitis Survey (CSS) and the generic Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36). Statistically significant improvement was found for several SF-36 subscales including physical functioning, role functioning-physical, bodily pain, vitality and all CSS subscales. However, the differences between the instruments in longitudinal sensitivity to change as measured by standardized response means (SRM) and effect sizes (ES) were large. For the SF-36, sensitivity to change ranged from minimal to small (SRM: 0.01–0.43; ES: 0.01–0.52) with bodily pain and role functioning-physical scores most sensitive. For the CSS, sensitivity to change ranged from moderate to large (SRM: 0.56–0.82; ES: 0.48–1.12) with symptom-based and total index scores most sensitive. Despite this, the SF-36 yielded useful information concerning the relative burden of chronic sinusitis and failure of these patients to achieve normal levels of general health 3 months after sinus surgery. We conclude that the disease-specific CSS was more sensitive to change than the SF-36 survey in patients following ethmoid sinus surgery.

Key words

Quality of life questionnaires sinusitis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    AdamsPF, BensonV. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey 1989. National Center for Health Statistics Vital Health Stats 1990; 10: 76.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SchappertSM. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1991 Summary. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    StankiewiczJA. Complications of endoscopic nasal surgery: occurrence and treatment. Am J Rhinol 1987; 1: 45–49.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    StankiewiczJA. Complications in endoscopic intranasal ethmoidectomy: an update. Laryngoscope 1989; 99: 686–690.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    StankiewiczJA. Blindness and intranasal ethmoidectomy: prevention and management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 101: 320–329.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    KennedyDW, ZinreichSJ, ShaalanH, et al. Endoscopic middle meatal antrostomy: theory, technique, and patency. Laryngoscope 1987; 97: 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    BinghamB, ShankarL, HawkeM. Pitfalls in computer tomography of the paranasal sinuses. J Otolaryngol 1991; 20: 414–18.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    HoffmanSR, MahoneyMC, ChmielJF, StinzianoGD, HoffmanKN. Symptom relief after endoscopic sinus surgery: an outcomes-based study. Ear Nose Throat J 1993; 72: 413–420.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gliklich RE, Metson R. Techniques for outcomes research in chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope; in press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    GuyattG, WalterS, NormanG. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171–178.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NormanGR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 1097–1105.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    PhillipsRC, LanskyDJ. Outcomes management in heart valve replacement surgery: early experience. J Heart Valve Dis 1992; 1: 42–50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    KantzME, HarrisWJ, LevitskyK, WareJE, DaviesAR. Methods of assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992; 30: MS240-MS252.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    HylandME, KenyonCAP, JacobsPA. Sensitivity of quality of life domains and constructs to longitudinal change in a clinical trial comparing salmeterol with placebo in asthmatics. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 121–126.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    PatrickDL, DeyoRA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S217-S232.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    LipseyMW. A scheme for assessing measurement sensitivity in program evaluation and other applied research. Psychol Bull 1983; 94: 152–165.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    LiangMH, FosselAH, LarsonMG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med care 1990; 28: 632–642.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    KazisLE, AndersonJJ, MeenanRF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–89.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeyoRA, CentorRM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chron Dis 1986; 39: 897–906.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    KatzJN, LarsonMG, PhillipsCB, FosselAH, LiangMH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992; 30: 917–25.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gliklich RE, Metson R. A comparison of sinus computed tomography staging systems for outcomes research. Am J Rhinol (in press).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    WareJE. How to Score the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    StewartAL, WareJE. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: duke University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    WareJE, SnowKK, KosinskiM, GandekB. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    GuyattGH, KirshnerB, JaeschkeR. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1341–45.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    CohenJ. Statistical Power Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. E. Gliklich
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. M. Hilinski
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Outcomes Research Unit, Department of OtolaryngologyMassachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryBostonUSA
  2. 2.the Department of Otology and LaryngologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations