Thread by @karenphysiocouk

Q for those with more in-depth knowledge of PACE...

One of the primary Outcome Measures was the "physical function subscale" of the SF-36.

I can't see anywhere an explanation of how they totalled up the scores from this...

... but this fascinating review looking at the use of the SF-36 notes that scoring requires the use of special algorithms, and has found a massive discrepancy in how studies have chosen to use it and tried to score it...
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

... the review concludes: "In our opinion, calculating a SF-36 Total/Global/Overall Score is a measurement bias (a systematic error) that can lead to a measure with poor validity... (cont)

... and "study results based on a measure (SF-36 Total Score) with questionable validity may produce negative effects on individual and community health and waste public and private resources"..

Just wondering if anyone knows any more details on how the "physical subscale" was actually used 🧐

Scoring system sort of explained here:
rand.org/health-care/su…

And a fantastic criticism and response going on in the early 2000s...
"current PCS MCS scoring procedure inaccurately summarizes subscale profile scores and should therefore be revised."
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11763202/

The slightly frustrated response from the developers:

"we again repeat our 7-year-old recommendation that results based on summary measures should be thoroughly compared with the SF-36 profile before drawing conclusions. "
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11763203/