Validity and responsiveness of GHC-index in patients with amalgam-attributed health complaints

References

• Konnopka A, Schaefert R, Heinrich S, et al. Economics of medically unexplained symptoms: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2012;81(5):265–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadhakhan F, Lindner OC, Blakemore A, et al. Prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms in adults who are high users of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e027922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton C. Beyond somatisation: a review of the understanding and treatment of medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(488):231–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroenke K. Efficacy of treatment for somatoform disorders: a review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosom Med. 2007;69(9):881–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen EB. Making and managing medical anomalies: exploring the classification of 'medically unexplained symptoms'. Soc Stud Sci. 2020;50(6):901–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aamland A, Malterud K, Werner EL. Patients with persistent medically unexplained physical symptoms: a descriptive study from Norwegian general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown RJ. Introduction to the special issue on medically unexplained symptoms: background and future directions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(7):769–780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards TM, Stern A, Clarke DD, et al. The treatment of patients with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: a review of the literature. Ment Health Fam Med. 2010;7(4):209–221.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zonneveld LNL, Sprangers MAG, Kooiman CG, et al. Patients with unexplained physical symptoms have poorer quality of life and higher costs than other patient groups: a cross-sectional study on burden. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):520.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bermingham SL, Cohen A, Hague J, et al. The cost of somatisation among the working-age population in England for the year. Ment Health Fam Med. 2010;7(2):71–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Konnopka A, Kaufmann C, König H-H, et al. Association of costs with somatic symptom severity in patients with medically unexplained symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75(4):370–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, et al. Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient. 2014;7(1):85–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zijlema WL, BioSHaRE, Stolk RP, Löwe B, et al. How to assess common somatic symptoms in large-scale studies: a systematic review of questionnaires. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74(6):459–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björkman L, Musial F, Alraek T, et al. Removal of dental amalgam restorations in patients with health complaints attributed to amalgam: a prospective cohort study. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(11):1422–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjursen TT, Lygre GB, Dalen K, et al. Changes in health complaints after removal of amalgam fillings. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38(11):835–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vamnes JS, Lygre GB, Grönningsaeter AG, et al. Four years of clinical experience with an adverse reaction unit for dental biomaterials. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32(2):150–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melchart D, Wuhr E, Weidenhammer W, et al. A multicenter survey of amalgam fillings and subjective complaints in non-selected patients in the dental practice. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(3):770–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Björkman L. A follow-up study of patients with subjective symptoms related to dental materials. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(3):227–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lygre GB, Sjursen TT, Svahn J, et al. Characterization of health complaints before and after removal of amalgam fillings-3-year follow-up. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3–4):560–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brähler E, Schumacher J, Brähler C. Erste gesamtdeutsche normierung der kurzform des gießener beschwerdebogens GBB-24. [First standardization of the short version of the Giessen subjective complaints list GBB-24 in re-unified Germany]. PPmP: Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie. 2000;50(1):14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melchart D, Vogt S, Kohler W, et al. Treatment of health complaints attributed to amalgam. J Dent Res. 2008;87(4):349–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamu AN, Björkman L, Hamre HJ, et al. Validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings: a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing amalgam removal. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budtz-Lilly A, Fink P, Ørnbøl E, et al. A new questionnaire to identify bodily distress in primary care: the 'BDS checklist'. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78(6):536–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen MW, Rosendal M, Ørnbøl E, et al. The BDS checklist as measure of illness severity: a cross-sectional cohort study in the Danish general population, primary care and specialised setting. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e042880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–1296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(6):441–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjur T. Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models—a new proposal: the coefficient of discrimination. Am Stat. 2009;63(4):366–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Nunnaly JC. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW. Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14(1):97–110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, et al. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37(5):469–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner HI, Higgins GC, Klein-Gitelman MS, et al. Minimal clinically important differences of disease activity indices in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(7):950–959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):804–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(5):735–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar