Table 4 HR-QOL in ATAAD vs age adjusted normative samples

Adam et al. [13]

SF12

The mean PCS for the ATAAD group were significantly lower than the norm sample (37.2 ± 10.9 vs 48.2 ± 8.8, P < 0.001)

The mean MCS was for the ATAAD group was significantly lower than the norm sample 48.9 ± 11.6 vs 51.4 ± 8.6, P < 0.001

Endlich et al. [14]

SF36

PCS1 43.2 ± 11 and PCS2 38.4 ± 9.9 were significantly lower in the ATAAD group than the norm P = 0.001

MCS1 48.1 ± 11.9 and MCS2 33.3 ± 11.9 were significantly lower in the ATAAD group than the norm P = 0.001

Santini et al. [18]

SF36

There were no significant differences between the ATAAD group and the norm sample in all SF36 domains

Jussli-Melchers et al. [19]

SF36

Pain scores, role limitations due to physical health, social functioning, role limitation due to emotional health and emotional well-being were significantly lower in the ATAAD group than the normative sample (P < 0.05)

Overall PCS and MCS scores did not vary significantly between the ATAAD groups and the normative sample

Sbarouni et al. [25]

SF36

PCS and MCS scores at the 10 year follow up were comparable to the normative sample

Immer et al. [26]

SF36

Compared to the normative sample, Physical functioning, Role functioning physical and general health scores were substantially lower

Olsson et al. [28]

SF36

There were no significant differences in MCS and PCS scores when compared to the norm (44 vs 45 and 48 vs 50 respectively)