Does Recall Period Have an Effect on Cancer Patients' Ratings of the Severity of Multiple Symptoms?

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
  • Patients and Procedures
  • Assessment Measures
    • Symptom Assessment
    • Cognitive Debriefing
    • Other Measures
  • Statistical Analysis
    • Sample Size
    • Statistical Methods
    • Psychometric Validation of the Seven-Day Recall MDASI
• Results
  • Demographic and Disease Characteristics
  • Comparison of the 24-Hour and Seven-Day MDASI Versions
    • Correlation Coefficients and Order Effects
    • Symptom Severity
  • Psychometric Validation of the Seven-Day Recall MDASI
    • Psychometric Properties
  • Cognitive Debriefing of the Seven-Day Recall MDASI
• Discussion
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

Context

Choosing an appropriate recall period for symptom assessment in a clinical trial is dependent on the design and purpose of the trial.

Objective

To examine the effects of recall on symptom severity ratings by comparing ratings made using 24-hour and seven-day recall periods of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI).

Methods

Forty-two patients in their third to eighth week of chemoradiation rated their symptoms using the MDASI on two separate occasions (T1 and T2), one week apart. At T1, patients were randomly assigned to rate symptoms using either a 24-hour or a seven-day recall. At T2, patients rated symptoms using the recall period not used at their first visit.

Results

Comparing the 24-hour and seven-day recall periods, the correlation coefficient for total symptom severity was 0.888. All correlation coefficients for symptom severity items were >0.7 except for distress (r=0.67). The percentages of moderate to severe symptoms (rated ≥5) were consistent for both recall periods, with no significant difference between recall periods in the prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms. Cronbach α coefficients for both 24-hour and seven-day recalls were >0.8. Symptoms from both recall periods were more severe for patients with poorer performance status. Twenty patients were cognitively debriefed; 70% thought that the seven-day recall was “more appropriate” for the MDASI, but 85% did not think that recall period would influence their answers.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the MDASI in a seven-day recall format has psychometric properties consistent with the 24-hour recall version, which may promote its use in future cancer clinical trials and may inform the choice of recall period when symptoms are outcome measures.

Key Words: MDASI, recall, validation, patient-reported outcomes, symptom, assessment

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

People with cancer report a variety of symptoms that are as likely to be caused by treatment as they are by the cancer itself.¹ Commonly prescribed treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of the two, are known to produce severe symptoms, including fatigue, pain, disturbed sleep, distress, and lack of appetite, that may vary over the course of treatment.² Such symptoms can be severe and extremely debilitating.¹

Comprehensive assessment of treatment-related symptoms is thus an integral part of patient care. To provide a more representative picture of the patient's symptom status, a questionnaire that assesses the severity of pain and other symptoms may be administered. Such questionnaires frequently use the patient's own report to describe symptom severity. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained acceptance by researchers and regulatory agencies because 1) some treatment effects are known only to the patient, 2) the patient has an important perspective on the effectiveness of a treatment, and 3) valuable information can be lost when a patient's perspective is filtered through a clinician's evaluation of the patient's response to clinical interview questions.³ One of these PRO-based multisymptom assessment tools is the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), a well-validated measure designed for use in the general cancer population.⁴ Patients responding to the MDASI rate the severity of multiple cancer-related symptoms in the past 24 hours and the degree of interference with functioning caused by those symptoms, using a 0–10 numeric scale. In a systematic review of 21 validated symptom assessment instruments,⁵ the MDASI was judged the best in terms of flexibility, reliability and validity, ease of completion, and utility in symptom management.

The past 24 hours is not always the most appropriate recall period for a clinical trial, however, and it is not unusual for a clinical trial to be designed to assess symptoms weekly or even less often.⁶, ⁷ On the other hand, a 24-hour recall period allows more frequent assessments for capturing changes over time than does a longer recall period. In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its Guidance for Industry—Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims.³ In this guidance, the FDA suggested that the choice of a suitable recall period in a clinical trial should depend on the specific purpose of the trial, the characteristics of the disease, and the treatment to be tested. Thus, careful definition of the recall period chosen is required in clinical trials with PROs as endpoints.

The MDASI has been used with a 24-hour recall period only. Therefore, we designed a study to assess the psychometric properties of a seven-day recall version of the MDASI in a group of patients undergoing chemoradiation. We selected the patient group and assessment time on the basis of results from a previous treatment study,² which showed that 1) approximately two-thirds of patients undergoing chemoradiation suffer from moderate to severe levels of multiple symptoms, suggesting that this symptomatic population is an ideal target for evaluating an instrument that assesses multiple symptoms and 2) the lowest weekly rate of change in symptoms occurred midway through chemoradiation therapy (i.e., Weeks 3–9 in a 12-week treatment period), suggesting that we could target a time point for the assessments during which symptom severity was relatively stable. The study used a crossover-type design in which each patient responded to both 24-hour and seven-day recall period versions of the MDASI, allowing us to compare between-patient ratings of symptoms from both versions and to examine the effects of recall on symptom severity ratings. We hypothesized that the patient symptom ratings based on seven-day recall would be sufficiently correlated with patient ratings based on a 24-hour recall to support the appropriate use of either measure.

This study was designed in light of the FDA's PRO labeling guidance to provide data for evaluating the rationale and appropriateness of a seven-day recall period. Our ultimate aim was to obtain a validated seven-day recall version of the MDASI that would have psychometric properties consistent with the 24-hour recall version and that would, therefore, be useful for assessing symptoms in future clinical trials. The comparisons reported herein should help clinicians and researchers to choose a MDASI version with the appropriate recall period for a specific clinical trial.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Patients and Procedures 

Patients with breast, head and neck, lung, gynecological, gastrointestinal, prostate, or brain cancer were enrolled in the study during the third to eighth week of chemoradiation in the Radiation Treatment Center at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Patients were eligible for the study if they 1) were at least 18 years old, 2) had a pathologically proven diagnosis of cancer, 3) spoke English, and 4) had signed a study-specific informed consent before study entry. Patients were not eligible to participate if they were 1) unable to understand the symptom assessment questionnaire in English, 2) unwilling to participate, or 3) unable to comply with protocol requirements. All patients provided informed consent to participate in the study. The MD Anderson Cancer Center Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Patients were seen on two occasions, one week apart, during regularly scheduled clinic visits. On each occasion, patients were asked to rate their symptoms using the MDASI. At the initial clinic visit (T1), patients were randomly assigned to rate their symptoms using either a 24-hour recall (Group 1) or a seven-day recall (Group 2). On their next clinic visit (T2), Group 1 patients, who had been assessed with the 24-hour recall version at the first visit, rated their symptoms with the seven-day recall version, whereas Group 2 patients, who had been assessed with the seven-day recall version at the first visit, rated their symptoms with the 24-hour recall version (Fig. 1).

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 1 

  Study design.

Assessment Measures 

The MDASI⁴ assesses the severity of 13 symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, disturbed sleep, distress, shortness of breath, difficulty remembering, lack of appetite, drowsiness, dry mouth, sadness, vomiting, and numbness or tingling) in the previous 24 hours. Each symptom is rated on a 0–10 numeric scale, with 0 being “not present” and 10 being “as bad as you can imagine.” The MDASI also contains six items that describe how much symptoms have interfered with various aspects of the patient's life (general activity, mood, normal work [including work outside the home and housework], relations with other people, walking ability, and enjoyment of life) during the past 24 hours. Each interference item is rated on a 0–10 scale, with 0 being “does not interfere” and 10 being “completely interferes.” For this study, a new version of the MDASI with the same symptom and interference items but a seven-day recall period was created.

A symptom severity component score can be derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of the MDASI symptom items. A symptom interference component score can be derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of the MDASI symptom interference items.

Patients have reported that the MDASI severity and interference items are relevant and easy to understand and that the 0–10 scale is intuitive and easy to use.⁸ In paper-and-pencil format, the MDASI takes less than five minutes to complete.

Cognitive debriefing was conducted in a subset of patients to gain their perspective on the appropriateness and feasibility of the two recall periods. In structured interviews, patients indicated how well they understood items of the MDASI, how comfortable they were with answering the items, and how well the items reflected their concerns about their disease or treatment.

Research staff conducted chart reviews to obtain patient demographic and disease information, including age, race, marital status, education level, employment status, cancer type and stage, disease status, and the date on which chemoradiation was started.

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS)⁹ was recorded at both T1 and T2. ECOG PS is a 5-point, physician-rated measure of functional ability, ranging from 0 (fully active; able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) to 4 (completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, and totally confined to bed or chair). ECOG PS has demonstrated excellent reliability and validity in numerous clinical trials and descriptive studies.¹⁰, ¹¹

Statistical Analysis 

Sample size was based on the need to detect a correlation of at least 0.70 between the two recall periods at the T1 clinic visit. Assuming a two-tailed test at a 0.05 level of significance, 42 patients were required to detect this correlation with 90% power.

To test our hypothesis that patient symptom ratings based on seven-day recall would be highly correlated (Pearson's r>0.70) with their ratings based on a 24-hour recall, Pearson product moment correlation was used to compare the 24-hour and seven-day recall periods for each symptom in each patient group. Component scores of the five most severe symptoms for each group were generated at each time point. Order effect was tested by comparing symptom severity and interference between T1 and T2. We also compared correlation coefficients between Groups 1 and 2.

We then combined data from the two groups to calculate the Pearson's correlation coefficients between seven-day and 24-hour recall periods, adjusting for group differences. Paired t-tests were used to compare the means of symptom severity and interference between the two recall periods. The percentages of moderate and severe symptoms between the two recall periods were compared using a Chi-square test.

Concurrent validity was tested by Pearson's correlation between symptom scores for the seven-day and 24-hour recall periods. Known-group validity was evaluated by comparing patients' seven-day recall MDASI scores stratified by ECOG PS to test whether patients with poor performance status (ECOG PS>1) would report expected increases in levels of symptom severity and interference in both recall periods. The internal consistency of responses was evaluated by Cronbach α.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Demographic and Disease Characteristics 

Forty-two patients with cancer were approached to participate in the study. None of the patients declined to participate, and no data were missing from either of the two assessments. Patients were evenly and randomly assigned to either Group 1 or Group 2. The demographic and disease characteristics for respondents in each of the two groups are provided in Table 1. The average age for Group 1 was 60.1 years (standard deviation [SD]=8.9) and for Group 2 was 54.3 years (SD=13.8). Most of the patients were women (86% in Group 1 and 67% in Group 2) and most had breast cancer (62% in Group 1 and 48% in Group 2). A greater proportion of patients had metastatic cancer in Group 2 (57%) than in Group 1 (43%), and Group 1 had better ECOG PS overall. No significant differences between the two groups were found in any of the demographic and disease characteristics.

Table 1. Demographic and Disease Characteristics (n=42)

Characteristic	Group 1 (n=21) (24 Hours: Seven Days)		Group 2 (n=21) (Seven Days: 24 Hours)
	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	3	14.3	7	33.3
Female	18	85.7	14	66.7
Age (in years)
≤55	7	33.3	10	47.6
>55	14	66.7	11	52.4
Race
White	12	57.1	13	61.9
Other	9	42.9	8	38.1
Marital status
Married	14	66.7	15	71.4
Other	7	33.3	6	28.6
Education
College or higher	16	76.2	12	57.1
Other	5	23.8	9	42.9
Employment
Employed	7	33.3	8	38.1
Retired	3	14.3	5	23.8
Disabled or leave	6	28.6	5	23.8
Unemployed	5	23.8	3	14.3
Cancer type
Breast	13	61.9	10	47.6
Head and neck	2	9.5	1	4.8
Lung	1	4.8	0	0.0
Gynecological	3	14.3	2	9.5
Gastrointestinal	0	0.0	5	23.8
Prostate	1	4.8	3	14.3
Brain	1	4.8	0	0.0
Stage
I	5	23.8	7	33.3
II	4	19.0	3	14.3
III	10	47.6	5	23.8
IV	2	9.5	6	28.6
Current status of cancer
Local or regional	12	57.1	9	42.9
Metastatic	9	42.9	10	47.6
Local or regional and metastatic			2	9.5
Week of chemoradiation treatment
3	12	57.1	7	33.3
4	2	9.5	7	33.3
5	4	19.0	2	9.5
6	1	4.8	2	9.5
7	1	4.8	1	4.8
8	1	4.8	2	9.5

ECOG PS was assessed for each patient at both T1 and T2. At T1, 76% of the patients in Group 1 and 62% in Group 2 had good ECOG PS (0 or 1). At T2, 86% of Group 1 patients and 67% of Group 2 patients had good ECOG PS. No significant difference was found in ECOG PS between Groups 1 and 2 at either time point, and no significant change was found over time for either group (Table 2).

Table 2. ECOG PS by Group and Time Point

T1=initial clinic visit and enrollment in study; T2=seven days later.

Comparison of the 24-Hour and Seven-Day MDASI Versions 

No significant difference was found in the means of all symptom items between T1 and T2 (data not shown), indicating no notable order effect in this study. Pearson's correlation coefficients for each symptom and interference item were compared between Groups 1 and 2, with significant differences found for vomiting, lack of appetite, shortness of breath, distress, activity, and walking. Therefore, partial correlation coefficients were calculated to control the group difference when Groups 1 and 2 were combined. Pearson's coefficients representing the correlation between the 24-hour and seven-day recall assessments were greater than 0.70 for all of the symptom severity and interference items except for distress (r=0.67) and relations with other people (r=0.58) (Table 3).

Table 3. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients for Scores from Seven-Day and 24-Hour Recall Periods

Fig. 2 shows the mean scores for symptom severity and interference for the 24-hour and seven-day recall periods. All mean scores were lower than 4. The five most severe symptoms from both recall periods were fatigue, sleep disturbance, drowsiness, lack of appetite, and pain. Paired t-tests did not find any significant difference between the 24-hour and seven-day recall periods. Percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms (rated 4 or higher on the MDASI's 0–10 scale) are demonstrated in Fig. 3. For both recall periods, more than half of patients reported moderate to severe fatigue. Percentages did not differ significantly between the 24-hour and seven-day recall periods.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 2 

  Average MDASI scores, seven-day and 24-hour recall periods. a) Symptom severity. b) Symptom interference.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 3 

  Percentage of patients with moderate to severe symptoms.

Psychometric Validation of the Seven-Day Recall MDASI 

The concurrent validity of the seven-day recall version was evidenced by significantly high correlation coefficients between 24-hour and seven-day recalls (Table 3). Known-group validity of the seven-day recall version of the MDASI was examined by comparing ECOG PS across time points. At T1, interference ratings and the severity of the five most severe symptoms were significantly higher in patients with poor ECOG PS than in patients with good ECOG PS, regardless of recall period. Seven days later, these ratings remained higher in the patients with poor ECOG PS regardless of recall period, and all differences were significant (Table 4). Cronbach α coefficients of both 24-hour and seven-day recall periods were greater than 0.80, indicating good internal consistency of the responses (Table 5).

Table 4. Known-Group Validity, Mean (SD)

MDASI Component, by Recall Period	ECOG PS at T1			ECOG PS at T2
	Good (0, 1)	Poor (≥2)	P	Good (0, 1)	Poor (≥2)	P
Five most severe symptoms
24-hour recall	2.19 (2.07)	4.00 (2.42)	0.017	2.23 (2.12)	4.44 (2.17)	0.007
Seven-day recall	2.32 (2.07)	4.62 (2.25)	0.002	2.47 (2.10)	4.82 (2.34)	0.005
Interference
24-hour recall	1.46 (1.86)	3.71 (2.07)	0.001	1.65 (1.99)	3.78 (2.01)	0.005
Seven-day recall	1.50 (1.82)	3.58 (2.25)	0.003	1.55 (1.75)	4.05 (2.33)	0.001

Table 5. Internal Consistency—Cronbach α

Cognitive Debriefing of the Seven-Day Recall MDASI 

Cognitive debriefing was conducted in 20 patients (10 patients from each of the two patient groups). Table 6 shows patients' opinions on how the recall period affected their report on the MDASI. Most patients thought that the seven-day recall period was easier to remember and more appropriate for answering the MDASI, although their answers were not significantly influenced by the recall period.

Table 6. Cognitive Debriefing of Recall Periods, by Group

Debriefing Item	Group 1, n (%)	Group 2, n (%)
Which recall period is easier to remember?
Past 24 hours	2 (20)	4 (40)
Past seven days	8 (80)	6 (60)
Is the recall period appropriate for answering the symptom severity items of the MDASI?
Past 24 hours	2 (20)	4 (40)
Past seven days	8 (80)	6 (60)
Did the recall period influence how you answered the questions?
Yes	1 (10)	2 (20)
No	9 (90)	8 (80)

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

This study found that MDASI ratings of symptom severity and interference made using a 24-hour or a seven-day recall period were highly correlated, and that the psychometric properties of the seven-day recall period were consistent with those of the 24-hour recall period. Our results suggest that, as with the well-established 24-hour recall version of the MDASI, the seven-day recall version is a reliable measure of symptom burden in symptomatic cancer patients. These results and the availability of the MDASI with two recall periods may aid clinical researchers in choosing the most appropriate recall period for rating the severity of multiple symptoms in a specific clinical or research setting.

The patients in each of the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and disease characteristics and were not significantly different as to ECOG PS status at either T1 or T2 or between T1 and T2. They reported the same five symptoms—fatigue, sleep disturbance, drowsiness, lack of appetite, and pain—as the most severe for both recall periods. Correlation coefficients greater than 0.70 for all but two of the 19 symptom and interference items indicate a high level of concurrency for these items. Known-group validity indicates that the seven-day recall version is as sensitive as the 24-hour version in detecting significant or meaningful group differences between patients by ECOG PS (0 or 1 vs. 2). Although this study needs to be replicated in a broader population, the relatively robust correlations suggest that similar information about symptom severity and impact could be derived from ratings made using either recall period.

Crossover-type designs have a number of inherent issues that must be addressed. One is the issue of order effects, where the order in which an assessment is administrated—in this study, which recall period was administered first—may affect the outcome. Our comparisons of the means of symptom items did not identify any notable order effect. Moreover, when we combined the two groups, we used partial correlation coefficients to control the difference between groups. A second issue is that of carryover between administrations of an assessment. In practice, carryover can be dealt with by use of a washout period between treatments or by making observations late enough after the start of a treatment period that any carryover effect is minimized. In our study, the seven-day period between T1 and T2 should be enough to eliminate the effect of the first assessment.

It is also important in a crossover study that the underlying conditions (symptoms, in this study) not change over time. Previous studies reported that accuracy of recall of past symptoms is affected by current symptoms.¹², ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵, ¹⁶ All patients in this study were in their third to eighth week of chemoradiation therapy because our previous study found that the lowest weekly rate of change in symptoms occurred during the middle of a course of chemoradiation therapy (Weeks 3–9 in a 12-week treatment period).² The stability of symptoms during the study lessened the impact of current symptoms on recall accuracy, making the symptom severities from the two recall periods comparable.

A potential source of bias for this study is response shift. The term “response shift” refers to the process that patients' internal standards, values, and the conceptualization of symptoms or quality of life may change as they adapt to the treatment.¹⁷ The then-test is the most used approach for evaluating the effect of response shift.¹⁸ Andrykowski et al.¹⁹ reported response shift in fatigue severity ratings (one of the MDASI symptoms) in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy; these patients retrospectively lowered their perception of the severity of the fatigue they had experienced before they started therapy. In our study, we were not able to evaluate the effect of response shift because we lacked a then-test. Moreover, the two measurements in our study were only one week apart and in the middle course of therapy characterized by stable treatment and stable symptom burden, whereas response shift is usually found after the entire treatment period.¹⁹ In addition, if we consider the T2 measurement of Group 1 (seven-day) as a then-test, no significant differences in symptom means were found between T1 and T2 (data not shown), suggesting that the probability of response shift may not be significant in this study. Future studies of this instrument using a then-test design are needed for weighing the effect of response shift for different recall periods.

The cognitive debriefing examined how patients responded to the seven-day recall version of the MDASI compared with the 24-hour version. The qualitative evidence showing similar reactions to both seven-day and 24-hour recall versions further confirmed the representativeness of the seven-day recall version.

The study was limited in that our sample included a high proportion of patients with breast cancer, which led to more women than men being included in the study. This may affect our ability to extend the findings to men. Further study with a balanced gender ratio may enhance the generalization of our results to men with cancer. Additionally, all patients were undergoing chemoradiation therapy, which has been related to high symptom burden in patients with cancer.² Lack of comparisons among different aggressive cancer treatments suggests caution when using these results in patients receiving other treatments. However, as was found in this study, other studies of cancer patients undergoing a variety of treatments have consistently identified fatigue, sleep disturbance, drowsiness, lack of appetite, pain, and distress as the most severe cluster of symptoms.⁸, ²⁰, ²¹ This indicates that similar results may be obtained from the seven-day recall version of the MDASI in cancer populations undergoing treatments other than chemoradiation therapy.

The results of this study demonstrate that symptom severity and interference as measured with a seven-day recall version of the MDASI are highly correlated with ratings from the 24-hour recall version and that these two versions have consistent psychometric properties. This study supports the consideration of a seven-day recall period version of the MDASI as a candidate instrument for assessing symptoms in clinical trials of patients with cancer.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007;37:16–21
   • View In Article
2. Wang XS, Fairclough DL, Liao Z, et al. Longitudinal study of the relationship between chemoradiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer and patient symptoms. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4485–4491
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071975.pdfAccessed June 11, 2010
   • View In Article
4. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, et al. Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer. 2000;89:1634–1646
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
5. Kirkova J, Davis MP, Walsh D, et al. Cancer symptom assessment instruments: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1459–1473
   • View In Article
6. Gabrilove JL, Perez EA, Tomita DK, Rossi G, Cleeland CS. Assessing symptom burden using the M.D. Anderson symptom inventory in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: results of a multicenter, open-label study (SURPASS) of patients treated with darbepoetin-alpha at a dose of 200 microg every 2 weeks. Cancer. 2007;110:1629–1640
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
7. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer. 2007;110:2809–2818
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
8. Gning I, Trask PC, Mendoza TR, et al. Development and initial validation of the thyroid cancer module of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Oncology. 2009;76:59–68
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
9. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–655
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
10. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23:129–138
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
11. Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Baez L, Loehrer P, Pandya KJ. Pain and treatment of pain in minority patients with cancer. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Minority Outpatient Pain Study. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:813–816
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
12. Eich E, Reeves JL, Jaeger B, Graff-Radford SB. Memory for pain: relation between past and present pain intensity. Pain. 1985;23:375–380
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (392 KB)
    • CrossRef
13. Harvey AG, Bryant RA. Memory for acute stress disorder symptoms: a two-year prospective study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000;188:602–607
    • View In Article
14. Meek PM, Lareau SC, Anderson D. Memory for symptoms in COPD patients: how accurate are their reports?. Eur Respir J. 2001;18:474–481
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Miranda H, Gold JE, Gore R, Punnett L. Recall of prior musculoskeletal pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:294–299
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Wells JE, Horwood LJ. How accurate is recall of key symptoms of depression? A comparison of recall and longitudinal reports. Psychol Med. 2004;34:1001–1011
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
17. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. The challenge of response shift for quality-of-life-based clinical oncology research. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:747–749
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
18. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MA. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1531–1548
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
19. Andrykowski MA, Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB. Magnitude and correlates of response shift in fatigue ratings in women undergoing adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37:341–351
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (269 KB)
    • CrossRef
20. Ivanova MO, Ionova TI, Kalyadina SA, et al. Cancer-related symptom assessment in Russia: validation and utility of the Russian M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:443–453
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (593 KB)
    • CrossRef
21. Yamagishi A, Morita T, Miyashita M, Kimura F. Symptom prevalence and longitudinal follow-up in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37:823–830
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (138 KB)
    • CrossRef