IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i1p61-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship between the Visual Analog Scale and the SF-36 Scales in the General Population: An Update

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Shmueli

Abstract

Objective. To update the 1993 relationship between the visual analog scale (VAS) and the 8 SF-36 scales found in the Israeli Jewish urban population aged 45 to 75 years and reported in Medical Decision Making (1999;19:122–7). Methods. Interviews with a sample of 2505 persons representing the same population in 2000 were used to estimate the above relationship. Results. The distributions of the VAS and the SF-36 8 scales were similar in 1993 and in 2000. In 2000, the Role-Emotional scale was not associated with the VAS, while the General Health scale proved to be its major determinant. Generally, the effects of the SF-36 scales on the VAS did not change between 1993 and 2000. Discussion. The relationship between the VAS and the SF-36 scales was found generally stable in the general population between 1993 and 2000, controlling for sociodemographic changes. The estimated relationship might be useful in predicting VAS scores from SF-36 scales in the general population.

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Shmueli, 2004. "The Relationship between the Visual Analog Scale and the SF-36 Scales in the General Population: An Update," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 61-63, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:61-63
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03261562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03261562
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03261562?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    2. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    3. Søgaard, Rikke & Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Olsen, Jens, 2010. "Methods for cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside trials in spine surgery," DaCHE discussion papers 2010:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    4. Laura J. Damschroder & Todd R. Roberts & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2007. "Why People Refuse to Make Tradeoffs in Person Tradeoff Elicitations: A Matter of Perspective?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 266-280, May.
    5. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:61-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.