Longitudinal evaluation of quality of life in 288 patients with Neurofibromatosis 2

Advances in molecular biology have resulted in novel therapy for neurofibromatosis 2-related (NF2) tumours, highlighting the need for robust outcome measures. The disease-focused NF2 impact on quality of life (NFTI-QOL) patient questionnaire was assessed as an outcome measure for treatment in a multi-centre study. NFTI-QOL was related to clinician-rated severity (ClinSev) and genetic severity (GenSev) over repeated visits. Data were evaluated for 288 NF2 patients (n = 464 visits) attending the English national NF2 clinics from 2010 to 2012. The male-to-female ratio was equal and the mean age was 42.2 (SD 17.8) years. The analysis included NFTI-QOL eight-item score, ClinSev graded as mild, moderate, or severe, and GenSev as a rank order of the number of NF2 mutations (graded as mild, moderate, severe). The mean (SD) 8.7 (5.4) score for NFTI-QOL for either a first visit or all visits 9.2 (5.4) was similar to the published norm of 9.4 (5.5), with no significant relationships with age or gender. NFTI-QOL internal reliability was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.85 and test re-test reliability r = 0.84. NFTI related to ClinSev (r = 0.41, p < 0.001; r = 0.46 for all visits), but weakly to GenSev (r = 0.16, p < 0.05; r = 0.15 for all visits). ClinSev related to GenSev (r = 0.41, p < 0.001; r = 0.42 for all visits). NFTI-QOL showed a good reliability and ability to detect significant longitudinal changes in the QOL of individuals. The moderate relationships of NFTI-QOL with clinician- and genetic-rated severity suggest that NFTI-QOL taps into NF2 patient experiences that are not encompassed by ClinSev rating or genotype.

Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research: Case Study Research

This article examines the main assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of case study method in legal studies. It considers the importance of research design, including the crucial roles of the academic literature review, the research question and the use of rival theories to develop hypotheses and the practice of identifying the observable implications of those hypotheses. It considers the selection of data sources and modes of analysis to allow for valid analytical inferences to be drawn in respect of them. In doing so it considers, in brief, the importance of case study selection and variations such as single or multi case approaches. Finally it provides thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses associated with undertaking socio-legal and comparative legal research via a case study method, addressing frequent stumbling blocks encountered by legal researchers, as well as ways to militate them. It is written with those new to the method in mind.