Scaling, Scoring, and Staging

  • M. E. Charlson
  • N. A. Johanson
  • P. G. Williams
Chapter

Abstract

The world of scales often appears to be murky, filled with inscrutable jargon and even more incomprehensible analytic techniques. Clinicians planning clinical research must take a commonsense approach to the use of scales or indices. A scale like a thermometer is an instrument to measure clinical phenomena; a score is a value on the scale in a given patient. Clinical scales provide a standardized, repeatable measure of a patient’s condition or functional status, just as thermometers provide a standardized repeatable measure of temperature.

Keywords

Coronary Artery Bypass Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Sickness Impact Profile Descriptive Scale Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hauser SL, Dawson DM, Lehrick JR et al. Intensive immunosuppression in progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 173–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Geneva: International Union Against Cancer 1974: 51–55.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacKenzie CR, ME Charlson. Standards for the use of ordinal scales in clinical trials. Br Med J 1986; 292: 40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taylor HL, Jacobs DR, Schucker B, et al. A questionnaire for the assessment of leisure time physical activities. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 741–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL, a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR, et al. Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 845–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirshner B and G Guyatt. A méthodologie framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Committee on Medical Aspects of Automobile Safety. Rating the severity of tissue damage. JAMA 1971: 215: 277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirkpatrick JR, and Youmans, RL. Trauma Index: an aide in the evaluation of injury victims. J Trauma 1971: 11: 711–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Committee on the Medical Aspects of Automotive Safety. Rating the severity of tissue damage: the comprehensive scale. JAMA 1972; 220: 717–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W, et al. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974; 14: 187–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA. Relationship between acute physiologic derangement and risk of death. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, et al. An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 410–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conn H, Lindenmuth W, Mayu C, et al. Prophylactic portocaval anastomosis. Medicine 1972; 51: 27–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meenan RF, Anderson JJ, Kasiz LE, et al. Outcome assessment in clinical trials: evidence for the sensitivity of a health status measure. Arthritis Rheum 1984; 27: 1344–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liang M, Larson MG, Cullen KE, et al. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985; 28: 542–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer In: Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents, MacLeod DM, ed. New York: Columbia University Press 1949; 191–205.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association. Diseases of the Heart and Blood Vessels: Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis, 6th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964: 112–13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dripps RD, Lamont A, Ecknehoff JE. The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 1961; 178: 261–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore EE, Shackford SR, Pachter HL, et al. Organ Injury Scaling System: Spleen, Liver and Kidney. J Trauma 1989; 29: 1664–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirkendall WM, Feinleib M, Freis ED, et al. American Heart Association recommendations for human blood pressure determinations by sphygmomanometer. Hypertension 1981; 2: 509–19.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armitage P, Fox W, Rose GA, et al. The variability of measurements of casual blood pressure: II. Survey experience. Clin Sei 1966; 30: 337–44.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyd NF, Wolfson C, Moskowitz M, et al. Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982; 68: 357–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feinstein AR, Gelfman NA, Yesner R, et al. Observer variability in the histopathologic diagnosis of lung cancer. Am Rev Respir Dis 1970; 101: 671–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spitzer RL, Cohen J, Fleiss JL, et al. Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis: a new approach. Arch Gen Psychiatr 1967; 17: 83–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldman L, Cook EF, Mitchell N, et al. Pitfalls in the serial assessment of cardiac functional status. J Chronic Dis 1982; 35: 763–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, and Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171–78.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodologic framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RS, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, et al. Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39: 429–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Temkin N, McLean A, Dikmen S, et al. Development and evaluation of modifications to the Sickness Impact Profile for head injury. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 47–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mahler DA, Weinberg DH, Wells CK, et al. The measurement of dyspnea: contents, interobserver agreement and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest 1984; 85: 751–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, et al. Should study subjects see their previous responses ? J. Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 1003–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guyatt G, Deyo RA, Charlson ME, et al. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brook RH, Ware JE, Rogers WH, et al. Does free care improve adult health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1426–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Health status measurement: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Clin Res 1989; 37: 315A.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karnovsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, et al. The use of nitrogen mustard in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1948; 1: 634–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Katz S, Ford AD, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    World Health Organization. The constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO Chron 1947; 1: 29.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    CASS Principal Investigators and Their Associates. Myocardial infarction and mortality in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 750–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Long term results of prospective randomized study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris Lancet 1982;11: 1173–80.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hampton JR. Coronary artery bypass grafting for the reduction of mortality: an analysis of the trials Br Med J 1984; 289: 1166–70.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    CASS Principal Investigators and Their Associates. Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery quality of life in patients randomly assigned to treatment groups. Circulation 1983; 68: 951–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Coronary artery bypass surgery: scientific and clinical aspects N Engl J Med 1981; 304: 680–84.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Niles NW, Vander Salm TJ, Cutler BS. Return to work after coronary artery bypass operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 79: 916–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Symmes JC, Lenkei SC, Berman ND. Influence of aortocoronary bypass surgery on employment. Can Med J 1978; 118: 268–70.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gutman M, Knapp D, Pollock M, et al. Coronary artery bypass patients and work status Circulation 1982; 66: 3 3–41.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    LaMendola WF, Pellegrini RV. Quality of life and coronary artery bypass surgery patients. Soc Sci Med 1979; 13A: 457–61.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Flynn MK, Frantz R. Coronary artery bypass surgery: quality of life during early convalescence. Heart Lung 1987; 16: 159–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Doubilet R, Weinstein MC, McNeil BJ. Use and misuse of the term “cost effective” in medicine. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 253–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fletcher AE, Hunt BM, Bulpitt CJ. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular disease. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 557–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stanton BA, Jenkins CD, Savageau JA, et al. Functional benefits following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1984; 37: 286–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med 1986; 105: 413–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    O’Young J, McPeek B. Quality of life variables in surgical trials. J. Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 513–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford Univ Press, 1987. A detailed description and critique of many different health status measures.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JE, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well being. Health Sery Res 1976; 11: 478–507.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 585–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Additional Reading

  1. Knaus WA. The science of prediction and its implications for the clinician today. Theor Surg 1988; 3: 93–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Charlson
  • N. A. Johanson
  • P. G. Williams

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations