Skip to main content
Download PDF

Psychometric properties and minimal important differences of SF-36 in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Respiratory Research volume 20, Article number: 47 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disease with a median survival of 3–5 years after diagnosis with limited treatment options. The aim of this study is to assess the psychometric characteristics of the Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) in IPF and to provide disease specific minimally important differences (MID).

Methods

Data source was the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg). The psychometric properties of the SF-36 version 2 were evaluated based on objective clinical measures as well as subjective perception. We analysed acceptance, feasibility, discrimination ability, construct and criterion validity, responsiveness and test-retest-reliability. MIDs were estimated via distribution and anchor-based approaches.

Results

The study population included 258 individuals (73.3% male; mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.7). Of them 75.2% (194 individuals) had no missing item. The distribution of several items was skewed, although floor effect was acceptable. Physical component score (PCS) correlated significantly and moderately with several anchors, whereas the correlations of mental component score (MCS) and anchors were only small. The tests showed mainly significant lower HRQL in individuals with long-term oxygen therapy. Analyses in stable individuals did not show significant changes of HRQL except for one dimension and anchor. Individuals with relevant changes of the health status based on the anchors had significant changes in all SF-36 dimensions and summary scales except for the dimension PAIN. PCS and MCS had mean MIDs of five and six, respectively. Mean MIDs of the dimensions ranged from seven to 21.

Conclusion

It seems that the SF-36 is a valid instrument to measure HRQL in IPF and so can be used in RCTs or individual monitoring of disease. Nevertheless, the additional evaluation of longitudinal aspects and MIDs can be recommended to further analyse these factors. Our findings have a great potential impact on the evaluation of IPF patients.

Trial registration

The eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank are listed in https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02951416).

Background

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disease with a median survival of 3–5 years after diagnosis [1]. Current treatment options as pirfenidone and nintedanib are still limited in respect to prolonging life [2]. Mortality alone does not appear to be a sufficient clinical endpoint regarding patients’ outcomes [1, 3,4,5]. Thus, health-related quality of life (HRQL) as a patient-reported outcome gains relevance [6]. Existing HRQOL instruments are not yet sufficiently validated as clinically meaningful endpoints in IPF [7,8,9]. Therefore, the utilisation of validated HRQL instruments is strongly recommended for marketing-authorisation application of novel treatments [10, 11].

The Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) is a generic instrument [12] which is frequently used in clinical trials in IPF as a secondary endpoint [13,14,15]. Generic HRQOL instruments are designed to measure overall health states and allow comparisons across patients with different diseases and the general population. Evaluating the validity of these generic instruments in specific diseases is indispensable and is also needed for the SF-36 in IPF [9]. Currently, two studies provide psychometric characteristics of the SF-36 in IPF based on longitudinal data [16, 17]. It is our knowledge that only these studies analysed if the SF-36 can detect changes or stability over time of HRQL, which is essential as an endpoint in clinical trials. Tomioka et al. used observational data of a single outpatient centre in Japan [16]. The analysis of Swigris et al. was based on international multicentre-data, which were part of the randomised clinical trial BUILD-1. Thus, the study population was subject to numerous inclusion and exclusion criteria [17, 18]. Hence, the external validity of the results of both studies might be reduced. Belkin et al. proposed additional research should take place before a broad implementation of the SF-36 [8]. Moreover, only Swigris et al. provide disease specific minimally important differences (MID), which are obligatory to evaluate changes in QOL over time [17, 19]. Therefore, patients would benefit from further longitudinal analysis based on multicentre-data and in a real-world setting.

The aim of this study was (1) to assess the psychometric characteristics of the SF-36 in IPF (acceptance and feasibility; discrimination ability; construct and criterion validity, and internal consistency; responsiveness and test-retest- reliability). Furthermore, we intended (2) to evaluate disease specific MIDs, using data from a comprehensive European registry, which provides real-world data from patients in different disease stages and ethnical backgrounds.

Materials and methods

Data and participants

Data source was the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg), one of Europe’s leading IPF longitudinal databases with nine participating countries and eleven study centres [20]. Both, eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank (biobank of eurIPFreg) have been reviewed and received positive votes from institutional review boards in Germany (e.g. Ethics Committee of Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen; 111/08), France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary and the UK. The research was conducted strictly according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank are listed in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02951416). Patients were included into the registry starting November 2009. The datasets generated and investigated during the current study are not publicly available due to registry regulations, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and agreement of the Principle Investigators of the eurIPFreg.

Patients’ data were collected by standardised questionnaires for physicians and patients at baseline and follow-up visits with intervals of three to six months, considering individual necessity and practical issues. Interim documentation in case of unscheduled visits was possible. The collected data was comprehensive and included besides clinical measurements and demographic data, also patient-self-reported instruments [21].

The study population was comprised of incident and prevalent IPF patients. There were following exclusion criteria: subjects without information of sex and age, absence of IPF diagnosis validated by a multidisciplinary team, missing lung function test at baseline, absent or incomplete information on SF-36 items (more than 50% missing values within each dimension) [22]. In case of missing date of filling out the questionnaires or medical examinations, we used the predefined follow-up date.

HRQL instrument

The SF-36 version 2 was used [22]. It contains 36 items categorised into 8 dimensions (vitality (VITAL), physical functioning (PFI), bodily pain (PAIN), general health perceptions (GHP), physical role functioning (ROLPH), emotional role functioning (ROLEM), social role functioning (SOCIAL), mental health (MHI)) and a physical as well as a mental component score (PCS and MCS), which can be calculated for individuals providing all dimensions. The dimensions range from zero to 100; higher values imply higher functional health and well-being. The PCS and MCS are adjusted to normal distribution (mean equal 50, standard deviation (SD) equal 10) with higher values for better functional health and well-being. Scores were calculated based on German scoring system to provide comparability since the majority of considered patients were Germans [23].

Anchors

For purposes of examining the validity of the SF-36 in IPF, we used the following anchors at baseline and follow-up: 6 min walking distance (6MWD) [24,25,26], percent of the predicted value of forced vital capacity (FVC % pred) (based on Global Lungs Initiative (GLI) equations), percent of predicted value of carbon monoxide diffusion capacity of the lung (corrected for haemoglobin, and if not available uncorrected values (DLCO % pred)), and also modified New York Heart Association Classification (NYHA) grade, evaluated by the physician (I-IV, the higher the more impaired) [27],

Baseline Dyspnoea Index (BDI) (scale 0–12, the lower the more impaired) (baseline only) and Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (scale − 9 to 9, the lower the more impaired) (follow-up only) [28], long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) (baseline only), Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale (1–5, the higher the more impaired) (baseline only) [29], and an item of the SF-36 which indicates perceived change in health during the previous year (follow-ups only). This SF-36 item was not included in any of the dimensions and component scores [12, 22].

Cross-sectional analysis

The SF-36 value was not captured during the first visit in all cases. Therefore, in this study we defined baseline as the date of the first filled in SF-36. Additionally, not all examinations were performed at each visit and we therefore decided to accept anchors within a timeframe of plus/minus 45 days around the first visit filled in SF-36. The time frame of 45 days was chosen because frequently, the date was only given as month/year and we needed to set the day to the 15th. Since the SF-36 considers the health status of the last 4 weeks and in some cases the exact date of examination was set to the mid of month, we decided to use 45 days as the maximum interval between anchors and SF-36.

Acceptance and feasibility

To assess acceptance and feasibility we examined the frequency of missing responses to items. As there might be some differences in specific populations, we searched for a possible influence of age, gender and severity of disease (estimated by DLCO % pred, FVC % pred, 6MWD) on the frequency of missing items via Pearson and Spearman correlation for metric and categorical variables, respectively.

Discrimination ability

Ceiling and floor effects in single items were examined as a possible indicator of an insufficient discrimination ability.

Construct and criterion validity, and internal consistency

The construct validity of the domains and summary measures was checked for individuals with and without LTOT via Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to consider possible non-normal distribution. We assumed that individuals with LTOT have a lower HRQOL than individuals without [30].

The criterion validity of the domains and summary measures was evaluated via Pearson correlation in case of metric anchors and Spearman correlation in case of ordinal anchors. A better health status and thus better values of the anchors should implicate higher HRQL and vice versa. Strength of correlation was categorized according to Cohen in great (greater than 0.5), moderate (0.3–0.5), small (0.1–0.3), and trivial (less than 0.1) [31]. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha for the domains and summary scores of the SF-36.

Longitudinal analysis

Considering the flexible intervals between the visits, the time frame between baseline and follow-up could not be defined a priori. As the SF-36 evaluates the HRQOL of the last four weeks, the interval between baseline and follow up needed to be of at least 28 days, except the SF-36 change item which has a time horizon of one year, here we considered only follow-ups with an interval of 300 to 450 days.

Consistent with the baseline procedure, the follow-up anchors were selected within a time frame of plus/minus 45 days around a filled in SF-36 form. For this purpose, we used a stepwise approach to find the nearest anchor around the SF-36 measurement and excluded matched anchors before we started the next search. An anchor examination was never used for two SF-36 measurements. The number of follow up visits with documented HRQOL and anchors varied and could possibly be more than one. In order to improve the power of these analyses, we decided to use the first and last observation per anchor and individual, provided their health status (improved vs. baseline, deteriorated vs. baseline, same as baseline) varied between these two observations. For example, if the health status was initially stable but deteriorated afterwards, we used both events in different groups and therefore different analyses. Considering an individual twice in one group (e.g. deterioration) would have lead to a bias. In this case, we considered only the last measurement of the respective anchor. For TDI we used only one observation, which was plus/minus 45 days around a filledin SF-36 compared to the preceding SF-36 as the instrument measures the change between two visits.

Responsiveness and test-retest- reliability

For assessing responsiveness and test-retest-reliability the individuals were categorized depending on whether their health status and thus their anchors changed during the follow-up or not. We defined variations with more than the MID of the anchor as improvement and deterioration, respectively. If the shift from baseline to follow up was less than the MID, we defined the anchor as unchanged. We defined the following MIDs for the changes of the anchors: 6MWD ≥30 m [32,33,34], FVC % pred ≥10%, and DLCO % pred ≥15% [35], TDI =1 [28, 36], modified NYHA score ≥ 1 [37]. If the anchor is stable, there should not be a significant difference in the SF-36 between baseline and follow up (test-retest-reliability). The responsiveness was tested by comparing baseline and follow up values of the SF-36 for improved and deteriorated anchors separately. A relevant change of the anchors should implicate a significant shift of HRQL. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank test in case to consider possible non-normal distribution of differences and possible small numbers of observations within the anchors per group.

Minimal important difference (MID)

The MIDs of the summary scores and the dimensions were estimated anchor- and distribution-based. To obtain distribution-based MIDs we used half standard deviation (SD) of baseline values of normally distributed domains [38, 39]. Normality was evaluated by visual inspection [38, 39].

For anchor-based MIDs, only anchors providing a correlation ≥0.3 at baseline to ensure sufficient relationships were considered [31, 39]. MIDs were estimated via linking, which are unaffected by the degree of correlation [40]. Therefore, the MID of the anchor was multiplied by the quotient of the baseline SD of the HRQL domain and the baseline SD of the anchor.

$$ {MID}_{HRQL}={MID}_{anchor}\times \left({SD}_{HRQL}/{SD}_{anchor}\right) $$

As only metric anchor provide meaningful SD, categorical anchors needed to be excluded and only following metric anchors were used: 6MWD, FVC % pred, and DLCO % pred.The mean of distribution- and anchor-based MIDs (if normally distributed and anchor correlated significantly and r ≥ 0.3) was calculated to provide an overall estimate of the specific MID. Additionally, the mean of the distribution-based MID with the MID of the anchor with the highest correlation was provided.

Sensitivity analysis

To detect possible bias we tested a possible influence of study sites on HRQL, adjusted for age, gender, DLCO % pred, FVC % pred and 6MWD.

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.3,©2002–2010 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Cross-sectional analysis

Out of 528 IPF patients, we excluded 139 patients as they had no SF-36 and one individual who had only answered one question. From the resulting 388 patients we excluded three individuals without information on gender and six individuals without date of birth. From the remaining 379 individuals, there was no FVC measurement around the first SF-36 in 121 cases. That does not mean there was no FVC measurement at all, but not within 45 days around the first SF-36. The study population included 258 individuals (73.3% male) with a mean age of 67.3 years (SD 10.7) and on average 2.6 years since first diagnosis (SD 2.8). In spite of a tolerance, a period of plus/minus 45 days between SF-36 and anchor, it was not possible to provide all anchors for each patient. HRQL presented in MCS and PCS was considerably reduced compared with norm values (mean 45.3, SD 11.8 and mean 34.6, SD 10.5 versus mean 50.0, SD 10.0) (Table 1). Except for ROLEM and ROLPH all HRQL measures were normally distributed based on visual validation.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics
Full size table

Acceptance and feasibility

Regarding single items, 75.2% (194 individuals) had no missing item in the SF-36, 21.3% (n = 55) one to ten and 3.5% (n = 9) eleven to 28 missing items. The number of missing items and age (r = 0.13, p = 0.03) correlated significantly. Gender as well as severity of disease were of no significant influence. A graphic representation on item level can be found in the Additional file 1 Figure S1. Within the dimensions, the percentage of completely answered items ranged from 93.0% (ROLEM) to 95.7% (PAIN) (Table 2).

Table 2 Missing items within the dimensions
Full size table

Discrimination ability

The distributions of several items were skewed, six had a tendency of more than 60% towards the worst answer category: ROLPH 1–4 (67.9, 74.3, 69.1 and 69.1%) and PFI 1 (78.9%) and 4 (65.6%). Almost half of the study population rejected (answer: ‘definitely false’) that their ‘health is excellent’ (45.8%, item 5 of GHP, possible answers: definitely true; mostly true; don’t know; mostly false; definitely false) (Additional file 2 Figure S2).

Construct and criterion validity, and internal consistency

PCS correlated significantly and moderately with several anchors whereas MCS did not correlate with any anchor with r ≥ 0.3. ROLEM, MHI and PAIN did not reach moderate or high correlations either. Other dimensions correlated significantly with particular anchors on a moderate to high level (Table 3). The tests showed significant lower HRQL in individuals with LTOT except for MCS, MHI, and PAIN (Table 4). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.85 (SOCIAL) to 0.87 (ROLEM), MCS and PCS showed a good internal consistency as well (0.86 both).

Table 3 Criterion validity analysed via correlation coefficiants
Full size table
Table 4 Construct validity: mean difference of QOL between patients without and with long-term oxygen therapy; significant differences of QOL confirm criterion validity
Full size table

Longitudinal analysis

SF-36 follow-up data were available of 161 individuals, where almost half of them (78, 48.5%) had up to four further documentations of HRQL and the maximum of filled in SF-36 was 10. The mean time between baseline and all considered follow-ups was 1.3 years (SD 0.88, range 0.1–5.0 years). The number of considered matches of anchors and HRQL (n = 591) was higher than the number of individuals within the follow-up study population, as different visits per patient needed to be considered to provide as much timely congruent documented anchors and filled in SF-36 questionnaires per individual as possible. Moreover, we accepted individuals twice with their first and last observation per anchor, if their health status of the respective anchor varied.

Test-retest-reliability and responsiveness

Analyses for test-retest-reliability did not show significant differences of HRQL except for SOCIAL and the anchor FVC % pred (Table 5). Individuals with relevant changes of the health status based on the anchors had significant changes in all SF-36 dimensions and summary scales except for PAIN (responsiveness) (Table 6).

Table 5 Test-retest-reliability: mean change of QOL in stable health status in anchor; non-significant changes of QOL confirm test-retest-reliability
Full size table
Table 6 Responsiveness: mean change of QOL in changed health status in anchor; significant changes of QOL confirm responsiveness
Full size table

Minimal important difference (MID)

The normal distribution could not be assumed for ROLEM and ROLPH and valid distribution-based MIDs could not be provided for both dimensions. As we considered only anchors with a correlation of at least 0.3 and none of the anchors correlated sufficiently with MCS, ROLEM, GHP, MHI and PAIN, it was not possible to provide any anchor based-MIDs for them. Combining the criteria of normal distribution and an at least moderate correlation, it was not possible to calculate a MID for ROLEM. The overall mean MID of PCS and MCS were five and six, respectively. Mean MIDs of the dimensions ranged from seven to 21 based on anchors correlating with r ≥ 0.3 and estimated MIDs of normally distributed domains and summary scores. Taking only distribution-based values and the MID of the anchor with the highest correlation, the mean MIDs ranged from seven to 14 (Table 7).

Table 7 Minimal important differences (MID)
Full size table

Sensitivity analysis.

The patients of the study sites varied in HRQL, disease severity, age and gender. After adjusting for age, gender, DLCO % pred, FVC % pred and 6MWD there was no influence of study site on HRQL detectable.

Discussion

The SF-36 seems to provide adequate psychometric properties to assess HRQL in IPF cohort. Our analysis demonstrated an increased number of missing items in older patients [41]. It is well known, that in an older population the number of missing items is higher [42, 43]. Especially items containing the wording ‘work or other regular daily activity’ (dimensions ROLEM and ROLPH) led to a higher number of missing values in our study as well as in the studies of Hayes et al. and Mallinson [42, 43].

A possible reason could be a misunderstanding of the wording ‘work or other regular daily activity’ as probably most of the older participants were retired or not able to hold down a regular job [42]. As 75.2% of participants completed the questionnaire without any missing values in our study, we assumed that the higher age of most of the patients suffering IPF is not necessarily a limiting factor.

As we expected in a severe disease such as IPF, there was a floor effect of the items regarding limitations in ‘vigorous activities’ and ‘climbing several flights of stairs’ (dimension PFI) as well as the statement ‘my health is excellent’ (dimension GHP). As the dimension PFI contains ten items and considers different levels of activities, the floor effect of two items may be acceptable. Surprisingly, 4.4 and 7.9% of our study population declared to have no limitations at all in these two physical activity categories and 1.6% rated their health as excellent.

Construct validity was also given. However, the measured dimensions MHI and PAIN and the MCS were not significantly reduced in individuals suffering LTOT. This might be caused by a positive influence of LTOT on well-being in some IPF patients. Regarding the criterion validity, it needs to be mentioned that the correlation of the anchors and MCS was lower than the correlation of the anchors and the PCS, which was also found in other studies [17, 44, 45]. Furthermore, the influence of dyspnea and physical activity measured via mMRC, BDI, NYHA, and 6MWD on HRQL was higher than the influence of clinical parameters as vital and diffusion capacity. Other studies also showed similar results with varying interpretation of the relevance of the correlation between pulmonary function and HRQL [16, 46,47,48,49].

Longitudinal analysis indicated sufficient psychometric properties, whereas the small number of observations limited the validity. Additionally, MIDs could not be estimated in all cases due to lacking sufficient correlation of anchors or missing normal distribution. If assumptions were given, the mean MIDs were higher compared to Swigris et al. (this study: range 5–21; Swigris et al.: range 2–4). Considering only the anchor with the highest correlation, the mean MIDs decreased and approached the MIDs of Swigris et al. Authors of the latter study used different methods and only two anchors [17]. Additionally, the amount of correlations or distribution patterns were not considered in providing MIDs. The different methods in combination with the strongly selected study sample of the BUILD-1 trial may explain the differences in our results.

The strength of this study lies in the international multicentre population of the IPF individuals of all ages and disease stages without strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which provides a ‘real life’ setting and transferable results. We investigated a potential influence of the study sites and countries on HRQL. After adjusting for age, gender, DLCO % pred, FVC % pred and 6MWD there was no correlation with HRQL. The number of incorrect diagnoses should be negligible as the diagnosis was based on multidisciplinary discussion and on ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guideline criteria [4, 50]. To consider clinical and patient-centred values, we used objective anchors as lung function values (FVC % pred, DLCO % pred) and need of supplemental oxygen, (LTOT), as well as subjective parameters as dyspnea scores (self-reported by patients (mMRC, BDI/TDI) and physician (NYHA))and a measure of physical functioning (6MWD). The MID was estimated based on anchors as well as on distribution as widely recommended [51, 52].

Our study has several limitations. First of all, the follow-up intervals varied and only 62.6% of the study population had at least one follow-up SF-36. Additionally, in some cases the date of examination and visit was missing and the scheduled visit date was used as proxy instead. For example, in 19 of 364 analysed baseline and follow up SF-36 questionnaires the date needed to be approximated. The share of missing values of single items still met regulatory requirements. Some analyses were based on a small number of observations.

Conclusion

SF-36 appears to be a valid instrument to measure HRQL in IPF and so can be used in RCTs or individual monitoring of this disease. Nevertheless, the additional evaluation of longitudinal aspects and MIDs can be recommended to further analyse these factors. Our findings have a great potential impact on the evaluation of IPF patients in clinical trials as well as individual disease monitoring.

Abbreviations

6MWD:

6 min walking distance

BDI:

Baseline Dyspnoea Index

DLCO % pred:

percent of predicted value of carbon monoxide diffusion capacity of the lung

FVC % pred:

percent of the predicted value of forced vital capacity

GHP:

general health perception

GLI:

Global Lungs Initiative

LTOT:

long-term oxygen therapy

MHI:

mental health

mMRC:

Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale

NYHA:

modified New York Heart Association Classification

PAIN:

bodily pain

PFI:

physical functioning

ROLEM:

emotional role functioning

ROLPH:

physical role functioning

SOCIAL:

social role functioning

TDI:

Transitional Dyspnoea Index

VITAL:

Vitality

References

  1. Bradley B, Branley HM, Egan JJ, Greaves MS, Hansell DM, Harrison NK, Hirani N, Hubbard R, Lake F, Millar AB, et al. Interstitial lung disease guideline: the British Thoracic Society in collaboration with the Thoracic Society of Australia and new Zealand and the Irish thoracic society. Thorax. 2008;63(Suppl 5):v1–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Behr J, Gunther A, Bonella F, Geissler K, Koschel D, Kreuter M, Prasse A, Schonfeld N, Sitter H, Muller-Quernheim J, et al. German guideline for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis - update on pharmacological therapies 2017. Pneumologie. 2018;72(2):155–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Behr J, Gunther A, Ammenwerth W, Bittmann I, Bonnet R, Buhl R, Eickelberg O, Ewert R, Glaser S, Gottlieb J, et al. German guideline for diagnosis and management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Pneumologie. 2013;67(2):81–111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Raghu G, Collard HR, Egan JJ, Martinez FJ, Behr J, Brown KK, Colby TV, Cordier JF, Flaherty KR, Lasky JA, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(6):788–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Raghu G, Rochwerg B, Zhang Y, Garcia CA, Azuma A, Behr J, Brozek JL, Collard HR, Cunningham W, Homma S, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline: treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An update of the 2011 clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(2):e3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Russell A-M, Sprangers MAG, Wibberley S, Snell N, Rose DM, Swigris JJ. The need for patient-centred clinical research in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. BMC Med. 2015;13:240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Raghu G, Collard HR, Anstrom KJ, Flaherty KR, Fleming TR, King TE Jr, Martinez FJ, Brown KK. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: clinically meaningful primary endpoints in phase 3 clinical trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185(10):1044–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belkin A, Swigris JJ. Health-related quality of life in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: where are we now? Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2013;19(5):474–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Swigris JJ, Fairclough D. Patient-reported outcomes in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis research. Chest. 2012;142(2):291–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products [www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf].

  11. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff - Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools [https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm230597.pdf].

  12. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Han MK, Bach DS, Hagan PG, Yow E, Flaherty KR, Toews GB, Anstrom KJ, Martinez FJ. SIldenafil preserves exercise capacity in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and right-sided ventricular dysfunction. CHEST Journal. 2013;143(6):1699–708.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. King TE, Brown KK, Raghu G, du Bois RM, Lynch DA, Martinez F, Valeyre D, Leconte I, Morganti A, Roux S, et al. BUILD-3: a randomized, controlled trial of Bosentan in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(1):92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Raghu G, Brown KK, Costabel U, Cottin V, du Bois RM, Lasky JA, Thomeer M, Utz JP, Khandker RK, McDermott L, et al. Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with Etanercept. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(9):948–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tomioka H, Imanaka K, Hashimoto K, Iwasaki H. Health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis--cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Intern Med. 2007;46(18):1533–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Swigris JJ, Brown KK, Behr J, du Bois RM, King TE, Raghu G, Wamboldt FS. The SF-36 and SGRQ: validity and first look at minimum important differences in IPF. Respir Med. 2010;104(2):296–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. King TE Jr, Behr J, Brown KK, du Bois RM, Lancaster L, de Andrade JA, Stahler G, Leconte I, Roux S, Raghu G. BUILD-1: a randomized placebo-controlled trial of bosentan in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(1):75–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, Furukawa TA, Patrick DL, Crawford MW, Hemmelgarn BR, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH, Nesrallah G. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e007953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guenther A, European IPF. Network: the European IPF network: towards better care for a dreadful disease. Eur Respir J. 2011;37(4):747–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Guenther A, Krauss E, Tello S, Wagner J, Paul B, Kuhn S, Maurer O, Heinemann S, Costabel U, Barbero MAN, et al. The European IPF registry (eurIPFreg): baseline characteristics and survival of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Res. 2018;19(1):141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ware J, Kosinsky M, Dewey J: How to Score Version 2 of the SF-36 ® Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetricIncorporated; 2000.

  23. Morfeld M, Kirchberger I, Bullinger M: SF-36 - Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand - deutsche Version des Short Form-36 Health Survey 2., ergänzte und überarbeitete Auflage: Hogrefe; 2011.

  24. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284(6329):1607–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McGavin CR, Gupta SP, McHardy GJ. Twelve-minute walking test for assessing disability in chronic bronchitis. Br Med J. 1976;1(6013):822–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mungall IP, Hainsworth R. Assessment of respiratory function in patients with chronic obstructive airways disease. Thorax. 1979;34(2):254–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association: Diseases of the heart and blood vessels. In: Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Diseases of the Heart and Great Vessels. 7th edn. Edited by Harvey R, et al. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.; 1973.

  28. Mahler DA, Weinberg DH, Wells CK, Feinstein AR. The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest. 1984;85(6):751–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mahler DA, Wells CK. Evaluation of clinical methods for rating dyspnea. Chest. 1988;93(3):580–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Belkin A, Swigris JJ. Patient expectations and experiences in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: implications of patient surveys for improved care. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2014;8(2):173–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences, second edn. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

  32. Holland AE, Hill CJ, Conron M, Munro P, McDonald CF. Small changes in six-minute walk distance are important in diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Respir Med. 2009;103(10):1430–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nathan SD, du Bois RM, Albera C, Bradford WZ, Costabel U, Kartashov A, Noble PW, Sahn SA, Valeyre D, Weycker D, et al. Validation of test performance characteristics and minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk test in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Med. 2015;109(7):914–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. du Bois RM, Weycker D, Albera C, Bradford WZ, Costabel U, Kartashov A, Lancaster L, Noble PW, Sahn SA, Szwarcberg J et al: Six-minute-walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: test validation and minimal clinically important difference. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 183(9):1231–1237.

  35. Ley B, Collard HR, King TE Jr. Clinical course and prediction of survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(4):431–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Witek TJ Jr, Mahler DA. Minimal important difference of the transition dyspnoea index in a multinational clinical trial. Eur Respir J. 2003;21(2):267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pires LA, Abraham WT, Young JB, Johnson KM. Clinical predictors and timing of New York heart association class improvement with cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with advanced chronic heart failure: results from the multicenter InSync randomized clinical evaluation (MIRACLE) and multicenter InSync ICD randomized clinical evaluation (MIRACLE-ICD) trials. Am Heart J. 2006;151(4):837–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fayers PM, Hays RD. Don't middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bender H, Dintsios CM. Gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität im Rahmen der frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln nach § 35a SGB V: Ein Endpunkt mit vielen Herausforderungen für alle beteiligten Akteure. Gesundheitswesen (EFirst).

  42. Hayes V, Morris J, Wolfe C, Morgan M. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: is it suitable for use with older adults? Age Ageing. 1995;24(2):120–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mallinson S. The short-form 36 and older people: some problems encountered when using postal administration. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(5):324–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Chang JA, Curtis JR, Patrick DL, Raghu G. Assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest. 1999;116(5):1175–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Jastrzebski D, Kozielski J, Banas A, Cebula T, Gumola A, Ziora D, Krzywiecki A. Quality of life during one-year observation of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis awaiting lung transplantation. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;56(Suppl 4):99–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bahmer T, Kirsten AM, Waschki B, Rabe KF, Magnussen H, Kirsten D, Gramm M, Hummler S, Brunnemer E, Kreuter M, et al. Clinical correlates of reduced physical activity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respiration. 2016;91(6):497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Glaspole IN, Chapman SA, Cooper WA, Ellis SJ, Goh NS, Hopkins PM, Macansh S, Mahar A, Moodley YP, Paul E, et al. Health-related quality of life in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the Australian IPF registry. Respirology. 2017.

  48. Swigris JJ, Esser D, Wilson H, Conoscenti CS, Schmidt H, Stansen W, Leidy NK, Brown KK. Psychometric properties of the St George's respiratory questionnaire in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(1).

  49. Zimmermann CS, Carvalho CR, Silveira KR, Yamaguti WP, Moderno EV, Salge JM, Kairalla RA, Carvalho CR. Comparison of two questionnaires which measure the health-related quality of life of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40(2):179–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Raghu G, Remy-Jardin M, Myers JL, Richeldi L, Ryerson CJ, Lederer DJ, Behr J, Cottin V, Danoff SK, Morell F, et al. Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(5):e44–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Clinical significance consensus meeting G: methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the participants and physicians who contribute to the registry, as well as our patients who participated in this effort.

Funding

From 2008 to 2011 the European Commission funded the European IPFnetwork (eurIPFnet) within the Seventh Framework Programme. Since then the work has been continued on local funding through the members home institutions and through limited funding from pharma industry (Roche; Boehringer Ingelheim) and foundations (“Lung Fibrosis” Stipend of the Foundation Waldhof-Elgershausen, German Lung Foundation as well as Robert Pfitzer Foundation). With the end of the initial public funding cycle of eurIPFnet, the eurIPFreg/bank was continued as independent project of the section “Registries and Biobanks in Pneumology” of the TransMIT, the Intelectual Property Agency of the Justus-Liebig-University Gießen. The eurIPFreg Steering Committee which has been governing the registry since 2009 remains in charge. This Committee is comprised of Prof. Bruno Crestani (Hopital Bichat, Paris, France), Prof. Andreas Günther (University of Giessen,Germany), Prof. Carlo Vancheri (University of Catania, Italy) and Prof. Athol Wells (Royal Brompton Hospital London, United Kingdom). Prof. Günther is the main Coordinator of the registry.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and investigated during the current study are not publicly available due to registry regulations, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and agreement of the Principle Investigators of the eurIPFreg.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Neuherberg, Germany

    Sabine Witt, Reiner Leidl, Rolf Holle & Larissa Schwarzkopf

  2. European IPF Registry & Biobank (eurIPFreg/bank), Giessen, Germany

    Ekaterina Krauss, María Asunción Nieto Barbero, Veronika Müller, Philippe Bonniaud, Carlo Vancheri, Athol U. Wells, Martina Vasakova, Alberto Pesci, Walter Klepetko, Werner Seeger, Bruno Crestani & Andreas Guenther

  3. Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Marburg, Germany

    Ekaterina Krauss, Werner Seeger & Andreas Guenther

  4. Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    María Asunción Nieto Barbero

  5. Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

    Veronika Müller

  6. Reference Center for Rare Pulmonary Diseases, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Dijon-Bourgogne, INSERMU1231, Université Bourgogne/Franche-Comté, Dijon, France

    Philippe Bonniaud

  7. Department of Clinical and Molecular Biomedicine, Università degli Studi di Catania, Catania, Italy

    Carlo Vancheri

  8. Interstitial Lung Disease Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    Athol U. Wells

  9. First Faculty of Medicine, Thomayer University Hospital Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Martina Vasakova

  10. Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza, Italy

    Alberto Pesci

  11. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Vienna University Hospital, Vienna, Austria

    Walter Klepetko

  12. Cardio-Pulmonary Institute (CPI), EXC 2026, Project ID: 390649896, Justus-Liebig University Giessen , Giessen, Germany

    Werner Seeger & Andreas Guenther

  13. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM 700), Hôpital Bichat, Service de Pneumologie, Paris, France

    Bruno Crestani

  14. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich Center of Health Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Reiner Leidl

  15. AGAPLESION Lung Clinic Waldhof-Elgershausen, Greifenstein, Germany

    Andreas Guenther

Authors
  1. Sabine Witt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ekaterina Krauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Asunción Nieto Barbero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veronika Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philippe Bonniaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlo Vancheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Athol U. Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martina Vasakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alberto Pesci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Walter Klepetko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Werner Seeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bruno Crestani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Reiner Leidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Rolf Holle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Larissa Schwarzkopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Andreas Guenther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SW analysed and interpreted the patient data, performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. SW, RL, RH and LS created the statistical analysis plan. EK, NB, VM, PB, CV, AW, MV, AP, WK, WS, BC and AG recruited IPF patients for the registry and have been involved in drafting or revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Witt.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Both, eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank (biobank of eurIPFreg) have been reviewed and received positive votes from institutional review boards in Germany (e.g. Ethics Committee of Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen; 111/08), France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary and the UK. The research was conducted strictly according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank are listed in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02951416).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Figure S1. Missingness map: On the y axis the individuals are sorted based on the frequency of missing items. On the x axis there are the single items clustered by their dimension. Bright fields indicate missingness, dark fields indicate answered items. (DOCX 70 kb)

Additional file 2:

Figure S2. Frequencies of answer categories on single item level including missing answers. The y axis shows the grouped items, the x axis indicates the frequency in numbers of the answer category or absence of answering, respectively. (DOCX 77 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Witt, S., Krauss, E., Barbero, M.A.N. et al. Psychometric properties and minimal important differences of SF-36 in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Respir Res 20, 47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1010-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1010-5

Keywords

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us