Literature DB >> 15528051

Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria.

John S Schmitt1, Richard P Di Fabio.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study contrasted the use of responsiveness indices at the group level vs. individual patient level. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We followed a cohort of 211 patients (50% male; mean age 47.5 years; SD 14) with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems for a total of 3 months. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). We calculated confidence intervals on various group-level responsiveness statistics based on effect size and correlation with global change. The proportion of patients exceeding the minimum detectable change (or reliable change proportion) and minimum important difference (MID proportion) were included as indices applicable to the individual patient.
RESULTS: For the DASH, effect size ranged from 1.06 to 1.67 for various patient subgroups, and the reliable change and MID proportions indicated that 50%-70% of individuals exhibited change based on individual change scores. Only the SRM and reliable change proportion indicated differences among the outcome measures used in this study.
CONCLUSION: The reliable change and MID proportions have an intuitive interpretation and facilitate quantitative responsiveness comparisons among outcome measures based on individual patient criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15528051     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  114 in total

1.  Motivation for youth's treatment scale (MYTS): a new tool for measuring motivation among youths and their caregivers.

Authors:  Carolyn S Breda; Manuel Riemer
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2012-03

2.  The symptoms and functioning severity scale (SFSS): psychometric evaluation and discrepancies among youth, caregiver, and clinician ratings over time.

Authors:  M Michele Athay; Manuel Riemer; Leonard Bickman
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2012-03

3.  Measuring youths' perceptions of counseling impact: description, psychometric evaluation, and longitudinal examination of the Youth Counseling Impact Scale v.2.

Authors:  Marcia A Kearns; M Michele Athay; Manuel Riemer
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2012-03

4.  Reliability of the dial test using a handheld inclinometer.

Authors:  David A Krause; Bruce A Levy; Jay P Shah; Michael J Stuart; John H Hollman; Diane L Dahm
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Tahira Devji; Ydo Kleinlugtenbelt; Nathan Evaniew; Bill Ristevski; Shoghag Khoudigian; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-11-10

6.  Measuring health status and decline in at-risk seniors residing in the community using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2.

Authors:  Jenny X Zhang; Jennifer D Walker; Walter P Wodchis; David B Hogan; David H Feeny; Colleen J Maxwell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Tennis elbow.

Authors:  Rachelle Buchbinder; Sally Elizabeth Green; Peter Struijs
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-05-28

8.  Investigation of central pain processing in postoperative shoulder pain and disability.

Authors:  Carolina Valencia; Roger B Fillingim; Mark Bishop; Samuel S Wu; Thomas W Wright; Michael Moser; Kevin Farmer; Steven Z George
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.442

9.  Preferences for Shared Decision Making in Older Adult Patients With Orthopedic Hand Conditions.

Authors:  Agnes Z Dardas; Christopher Stockburger; Sean Boone; Tonya An; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 2.230

10.  Responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences after cholecystectomy: GIQLI versus SF-36.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; Hao-Hsien Lee; Chong-Chi Chiu; Herng-Chia Chiu; Yih-Huei Uen; King-Teh Lee
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-05-03       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.