Limited role of multi-attribute utility scale and SF-36 in predicting management outcome of heavy menstrual bleeding

ObjectiveTo compare the value of SF36v2 versus multi-attribute utility score (MAS) for predicting treatment outcome in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).Study designLongitudinal observational study, in an outpatient service of a large UK teaching hospital. 193 women took part. Women were asked to complete SF36v2 and a multi-attribute utility score (MAS) for menorrhagia before the first consultation. Patient management was determined through an evidence based guideline and blind to their response to the questionnaire. Treatment outcome at 8 months was examined in relation to the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health summary scales of SF36v2 and to MAS.ResultsAt study entry equal numbers of patients, 179 (93%), returned usable responses for SF36v2 and the multi-attribute scale; 178 (92%) returned both. Baseline SF36v2 scores for role physical, bodily pain, social functioning and mental health were significantly lower (p < 0.05) for the group of women who finally required surgery, but the difference in PCS or MCS was not statistically significant. The mean MAS score for those who did not need surgery was 50.7, and for those who needed surgery following failed medical treatment was 35.06. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001, 95% CI 7.47–23.82). Using logistic regression analysis there was a statistically significant association between baseline MAS but not MCS or PCS and the need for surgery. However, there was considerable overlap between treatment groups.ConclusionsMAS may be a better predictor of management outcome compared to SF36v2 for HMB; but its utility for the individual patient is limited.