Minimal important difference of change in patient-specific goals in severe emphysema patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hartman JE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7569157 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Minimal important difference of change in patient-specific goals in severe emphysema patients.
Hartman Jorine E JE Klooster Karin K Koster T David TD van Dijk Marlies M Slebos Dirk-Jan DJ
ERJ open research 20201019 4
<b>Change in patient's personal treatment goals is an important patient-reported outcome and can be measured by the patient-specific complaints (PSC) questionnaire. This paper establishes the MID for this questionnaire as -5.9 points.</b> https://bit.ly/3kwvWKM. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Our aim was to determine the minimal important difference (MID) for 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and maximal cycle exercise capacity (MCEC) in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 1,218 patients enrolled in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial completed exercise tests before and after 4-6 weeks of pre-trial rehabilitation, and 6 months after randomisation to surgery or medical care. The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (domain and total scores) and University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (total score) served as anchors for anchor-based MID estimates. In order to calculate distribution-based estimates, we used the standard error of measurement, Cohen's effect size and the empirical rule effect size. Anchor-based estimates for the 6MWD were 18.9 m (95% CI 18.1-20.1 m), 24.2 m (95% CI 23.4-25.4 m), 24.6 m (95% CI 23.4-25.7 m) and 26.4 m (95% CI 25.4-27.4 m), which were similar to distribution-based MID estimates of 25.7, 26.8 and 30.6 m. For MCEC, anchor-based estimates for the MID were 2.2 W (95% CI 2.0-2.4 W), 3.2 W (95% CI 3.0-3.4 W), 3.2 W (95% CI 3.0-3.4 W) and 3.3 W (95% CI 3.0-3.5 W), while distribution-based estimates were 5.3 and 5.5 W. We suggest a MID of 26 ± 2 m for 6MWD and 4 ± 1 W for MCEC for patients with severe COPD.
| S-EPMC5516638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Valid, reliable, and clinically relevant outcome measures are necessary in clinical studies of snake envenomation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric (validity and reliability) and clinimetric (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) properties of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in snakebite envenomation. METHODS:We performed a secondary analysis of two existing snakebite trials that measured clinical outcomes using the PSFS as well as other quality of life and functional assessments. Data were collected at 3, 7, 10, and 17 days. Reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for temporal stability at 10 and 17 days. Validity was assessed using concurrent validity correlating with the other assessments. The MCID was evaluated using the following criteria: (1) the distribution of stable patients according to both standard error of measurement (SEM) and responsiveness techniques, and (2) anchor-based methods to compare between individuals and to detect discriminant ability of a positive change with a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and optimal cutoff point. RESULTS:A total of 86 patients were evaluated in this study. The average PSFS scores were 5.37 (SD 3.23), 7.95 (SD 2.22), and 9.12 (SD 1.37) at 3, 7, and 10 days, respectively. Negligible floor effect was observed (maximum of 8% at 3 days); however, a ceiling effect was observed at 17 days (25%). The PSFS showed good reliability with an internal consistency of 0.91 (Cronbach's alpha) (95% CI 0.88, 0.95) and a temporal stability of 0.83 (ICC) (95% CI 0.72, 0.89). The PSFS showed a strong positive correlation with quality of life and functional assessments. The MCID was approximately 1.0 for all methods. CONCLUSIONS:With an MCID of approximately 1 point, the PSFS is a valid and reliable tool to assess quality of life and functionality in patients with snake envenomation.
| S-EPMC6400437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveReference values of physical activity to interpret longitudinal changes are not available in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study aimed to define the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of longitudinal changes in physical activity in patients with IPF.MethodsUsing accelerometry, physical activity (steps per day) was measured and compared at baseline and 6-months follow-up in patients with IPF. We calculated MCID of daily step count using multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Forced vital capacity and 6-minute walk distance were applied as anchors in anchor-based methods. Effect size and standard error of measurement were used to calculate MCID in distribution-based methods.ResultsOne-hundred and five patients were enrolled in the study (mean age: 68.5 ± 7.5 years). Step count significantly decreased from baseline to 6-months follow-up (-461 ± 2402, p = .031). MCID calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods ranged from 570-1358 steps.ConclusionDaily step count significantly declined over 6-months in patients with IPF. MCID calculated by multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods was 570 to 1358 steps/day. These findings contribute to interpretation of the longitudinal changes of physical activity that will assist its use as a clinical and research outcome in patients with IPF.
| S-EPMC10748643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Using a real dataset, we highlighted several major methodological issues raised by the estimation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of a Patient-Reported Outcomes instrument. We especially considered the management of missing data and the use of more than two times of measurement. While inappropriate missing data management and inappropriate use of multiple time points can lead to loss of precision and/or bias in MCID estimation, these issues are almost never dealt with and require cautious considerations in the context of MCID estimation. METHODS:We used the LIGALONGO study (French Randomized Controlled Trial). We estimated MCID on the SF-36 General Health score by comparing many methods (distribution or anchor-based). Different techniques for imputation of missing data were performed (simple and multiple imputations). We also consider all measurement occasions by longitudinal modeling, and the dependence of the score difference on baseline. RESULTS:Three hundred ninety-three patients were studied. With distribution-based methods, a great variability in MCID was observed (from 3 to 26 points for improvement). Only 0.2 SD and 1/3 SD distribution methods gave MCID values consistent with anchor-based methods (from 4 to 7 points for improvement). The choice of missing data imputation technique clearly had an impact on MCID estimates. Simple imputation by mean score seemed to lead to out-of-range estimate, but as missing not at random mechanism can be hypothesized, even multiple imputations techniques can have led to an slight underestimation of MCID. Using 3 measurement occasions for improvement led to an increase in precision but lowered estimates. CONCLUSION:This practical example illustrates the substantial impact of some methodological issues that are usually never dealt with for MCID estimation. Simulation studies are needed to investigate those issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01240772 (ClinicalTrials.gov) registered on November 15, 2010.
| S-EPMC7251729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChanges in physical activity (PA) are difficult to interpret because no framework of minimal important difference (MID) exists. We aimed to determine the minimal important difference (MID) in physical activity (PA) in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and to clinically validate this MID by evaluating its impact on time to first COPD-related hospitalization.MethodsPA was objectively measured for one week in 74 patients before and after three months of rehabilitation (rehabilitation sample). In addition the intraclass correlation coefficient was measured in 30 patients (test-retest sample), by measuring PA for two consecutive weeks. Daily number of steps was chosen as outcome measurement. Different distribution and anchor based methods were chosen to calculate the MID. Time to first hospitalization due to an exacerbation was compared between patients exceeding the MID and those who did not.ResultsCalculation of the MID resulted in 599 (Standard Error of Measurement), 1029 (empirical rule effect size), 1072 (Cohen's effect size) and 1131 (0.5SD) steps.day-1. An anchor based estimation could not be obtained because of the lack of a sufficiently related anchor. The time to the first hospital admission was significantly different between patients exceeding the MID and patients who did not, using the Standard Error of Measurement as cutoff.ConclusionsThe MID after pulmonary rehabilitation lies between 600 and 1100 steps.day-1. The clinical importance of this change is supported by a reduced risk for hospital admission in those patients with more than 600 steps improvement.
| S-EPMC4849755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The modified version of the Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire (PFSDQ-M) is used in patients with COPD to obtain information about their functional status. It consists of 3 components (change in activities, dyspnea and fatigue) ranging from 0 to 100 and has been shown to be responsive following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The interpretation of changes in PFSDQ-M score after an intervention is difficult in the absence of the minimal important difference (MID) of the PFSDQ-M. This study aims at investigating the MID of the PFSDQ-M. METHODS: We enrolled 301 patients with COPD (FEV1 42?±?15%pred) that completed the PFSDQ-M before and after a 3-month PR program (?Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRDQ) +16?±?12 points, ?Six-minute walking distance (6MWD) +47?±?89 m, both p?<?0.001). An anchor-based approach consisted of calculating the correlation between the ?PFSDQ-M and anchors with an established MID (?CRDQ and ?6MWD). Linear regression analyses were performed to predict the MID from these anchors. Secondly several distribution-based approaches (Cohen's effect size, empirical rule effect size and standard error of measurement method) were used. RESULTS: Anchor-based estimates for the different PFSDQ-M-components were between -3 and -5 points based on CRDQ score and -6 (only calculated for change in activities) based on 6MWD. Using the distribution-based methods, the estimates of MID ranged from -3 to -5 points for the different components. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the estimate of MID of the PFSDQ-M after pulmonary rehabilitation corresponds to a change of 5 points (range - 3 to -6) in each component in patients with severe COPD.
| S-EPMC3667081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health-related information from a patient's perspective. These measures have been used more frequently over the last several decades, but an associated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility. This narrative review identified the top 100 most-cited otolaryngology-related PROM development and validation publications and assessed the presence and characteristics of the PROMs' associated MCID.ObservationsIn this narrative review, a literature search in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngology and reference lists. Studies that met the definition of a PROM and assessed an otolaryngologic disorder or study population were included for full-text review. After full-text review of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review. A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID. Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%) used a distribution-based method, 10 (25.6%) used both, and 3 (7.7%) did not specify or used neither method. Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 of 13, 7.7%). The median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID.Conclusions and relevanceThe majority of the most-cited PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID. These data indicated that there are a multitude of PROMs that have been cited hundreds of times and used for decades without the ability to identify whether a particular change in score on the instrument is clinically meaningful. There is a need to determine and validate MCIDs for commonly used PROMs to aid clinical research and trial interpretation.
| S-EPMC10729312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and hypothesisPatient-reported outcome measures are fundamental tools when assessing effectiveness of treatments. The challenge lies in the interpretation: which magnitude of change in score is meaningful for the patients? The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference in score that patients perceive as important. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value of score beyond which patients consider themselves well. We aimed to determine the MID and PASS for Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery.MethodsWe used data from 2704 POP surgeries from a prospective, population-based cohort. MID was determined with three anchor-based and one distribution-based method. PASS was defined using two different methods. Medians of the estimates were identified.ResultsThe MID estimates with (1) mean change, (2) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, (3) 75th percentile, and (4) distribution-based method varied between 22.9-25.0 (median 24.2) points for PFDI-20 and 9.0-12.5 (median 11.3) for POPDI-6. The PASS cutoffs with (1) 75th percentile and (2) ROC curve method varied between 57.7-62.5 (median 60.0) for PFDI-20 and 16.7-17.7 (median 17.2) for POPDI-6.ConclusionA mean difference of 24 points in the PFDI-20 or 11 points in the POPDI-6 can be used as a clinically relevant difference between groups. Postoperative scores ≤ 60 for PFDI-20 and ≤ 17 for POPDI-6 signify acceptable symptom state.
| S-EPMC8642346 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6336372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures.MethodsWe recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means.ResultsDepending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH.ConclusionThe study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).
| S-EPMC10324132 | biostudies-literature