Comparing two methods of follow up in a multicentre randomised trial

被引:10
作者
Fooks, J
Mutch, L
Yudkin, P
Johnson, A
Elbourne, D
机构
[1] JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSP, NUFFIELD DEPT OBSTET & GYNAECOL, OXFORD OX3 9DU, ENGLAND
[2] UNIV OXFORD, RADCLIFFE INFIRM, DEPT PUBL HLTH & PRIMARY CARE, OXFORD OX2 6HE, ENGLAND
关键词
outcome measures; multicentre randomised controlled trial; post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation;
D O I
10.1136/adc.76.4.369
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Aims-To evaluate a parental questionnaire as a means of providing outcome measures for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of treatment for posthaemorrhagic ventricular dilatation. Methods-The parents of 88 survivors were sent a questionnaire before a paediatric assessment at the age of 30 months. The parents' responses to individual questions taken mainly from the Griffiths' mental development scales and their perception of the child's ability to see and hear were compared with the paediatric findings. A model, based on the parents' responses to particular questions, allowed the categorisation of the children as normal, impaired, moderately or severely disabled; this was compared with similar categorisation based on the full paediatric assessment. Results-Agreement on items concerning gross motor function ranged between 81 and 99%, concerning dressing between 77 and 80%, concerning feeding between 91 and 99%, and concerning language between 85 and 93%. Similar proportions of children were identified as disabled by the parents (60%) and by the paediatrician (66%). Of 29 children who had developmental quotients less than 70, parents identified 28 as disabled, 18 of them as severely disabled. They were not so good at identifying children with impairments without functional loss. Conclusions-Further work is required but there is sufficient encouragement from the results to pursue this methodology further for use in comparing groups in randomised trials.
引用
收藏
页码:369 / 376
页数:8
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1985, REYNELL DEV LANGUAGE
[2]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[3]   STATISTICAL-METHODS FOR ASSESSING OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN CLINICAL MEASURES [J].
BRENNAN, P ;
SILMAN, A .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1992, 304 (6840) :1491-1494
[4]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[5]   PARENTAL ESTIMATE OF CHILDS DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL IN A HIGH-RISK POPULATION [J].
COPLAN, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN, 1982, 136 (02) :101-104
[6]   REVISION OF DENVER PRESCREENING DEVELOPMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
FRANKENBURG, WK ;
FANDAL, AW ;
THORNTON, SM .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1987, 110 (04) :653-657
[7]  
GRIFFITHS R, 1954, ABILITIES YOUNG CHIL
[8]   PRELIMINARY-OBSERVATIONS ON MATERNAL RATING OF HEALTH OF CHILDREN - DATA FROM 3 SUBSPECIALTY CLINICS [J].
MCCORMICK, MC ;
ATHREYA, BH ;
BERNBAUM, JC ;
CHARNEY, EB .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1988, 41 (04) :323-329
[9]  
ROSENBAUM P, 1995, DEV MED CHILD NEUROL, V37, P577
[10]   SIMPLE CLINICAL HEARING-TESTS FOR VERY YOUNG OR MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN [J].
SHERIDAN, MD .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1958, 2 (OCT25) :999-1004