Skip to main content

Table 2 A taxonomy of health status and quality of life measures [13]

From: Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes

Measure

Strengths

Weaknesses

Types of Scores Produced

  

Single indicator number

Global evaluation

May be difficult to interpret

Useful for population

Single index number

Represents net impact

Sometimes not possible to disaggregate contribution of domains to the overall score

Useful for cost effectiveness

Profile of interrelated scores

Single instrument

Length may be a problem

Contribution of domains to overall score possible

May not have overall score

Battery of independent scores

Wide range of relevant outcomes possible

Cannot relate different outcomes to common measurement scale

May need to adjust for multiple comparisons

May need to identify the major outcome

Range of Populations and Concepts

 

Generic: applied across diseases, conditions, populations, and concepts

Broadly applicable

May not be responsive to change

Summarizes range of concepts

May not have focus of patient interest

Detection of unanticipated effects possible

Length may be a problem

Effects may be difficult to interpret

Specific: applied to individuals, diseases, conditions, populations, or concepts/domains

More acceptable to respondents

Cannot compare across conditions or populations

May be more responsive to change

Cannot detect unanticipated effects

Weighting System

  

Utility: preference weights from patients, providers, or community

Interval scale

May have difficulty obtaining weights

Patient or consumer view incorporated

May not differ from statistical weights that are easier to obtain

Equal-weighting: items weighted equally or from frequency or responses

Self-weighting samples

May be influenced by prevalence

More familiar techniques

Cannot incorporate tradeoffs

Appears easier to use

  1. *Adapted from Patrick and Erickson, 1993.