Literature DB >> 18313559

Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures.

Javier Rejas1, Antonio Pardo, Miguel Angel Ruiz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of agreement between standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimally important difference (MID) criteria to evaluate the magnitude of the change caused by a medical intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Data were obtained from a cohort of 603 patients with neuropathic pain undergoing analgesic treatment with gabapentin who completed four health scales: Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, Covi Anxiety Scale, and Raskin Depression scale. After calculating MID and SEM values for all scales, patients were classified into three categories: improvement, no change, and worsening. Agreement between the two criteria was assessed using Cohen's kappa index of agreement and Kendall's tau-b linear correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: The 1 SEM criterion showed the highest agreement (kappa=0.68-1.00) and correlation (tau-b=0.75-1.00) with the MID criterion. Sensitivity analysis performed in gabapentin responders and nonresponders confirmed the results of the main analysis.
CONCLUSION: The 1 SEM criterion is a valid alternative to the MID criterion to evaluate the magnitude of the change produced in patient-reported health outcomes measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18313559     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.05.011

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Modifying measures based on differential item functioning (DIF) impact analyses.

Authors:  Jeanne A Teresi; Mildred Ramirez; Richard N Jones; Seung Choi; Paul K Crane
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2012-03-15

2.  Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence.

Authors:  John Eric Jelovsek; Zhen Chen; Alayne D Markland; Linda Brubaker; Keisha Y Dyer; Susie Meikle; David D Rahn; Nazeema Y Siddiqui; Ashok Tuteja; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.091

3.  Symptom improvement in women after fecal incontinence treatments: a multicenter cohort study of the pelvic floor disorders network.

Authors:  Alayne Markland; Lu Wang; J Eric Jelovsek; Linda Brubaker; Ashook Tuteja; Alison C Weidner; Andelka LoSavio; Marlene Corton; Susan Meikle; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 4.  Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients with melanoma.

Authors:  Janice N Cormier; Robert L Askew
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.495

5.  Guidelines for Designing and Evaluating Feasibility Pilot Studies.

Authors:  Jeanne A Teresi; Xiaoying Yu; Anita L Stewart; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Cathie Spino; Nancy K Janz; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Charles W Nager; Thomas L Wheeler
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Validating endpoints for therapeutic trials in fecal incontinence.

Authors:  J Noelting; A R Zinsmeister; A E Bharucha
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2016-03-06       Impact factor: 3.598

8.  Defining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Heinrichs-carpenter quality of life scale (QLS).

Authors:  Bruno Falissard; Christophe Sapin; Jean-Yves Loze; Wally Landsberg; Karina Hansen
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 4.035

9.  Expanded and independent validation of the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).

Authors:  Pablo Martinez-Martin; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Mario Alvarez-Sanchez; Tomoko Arakaki; Alberto Bergareche-Yarza; Anabel Chade; Nelida Garretto; Oscar Gershanik; Monica M Kurtis; Juan Carlos Martinez-Castrillo; Amelia Mendoza-Rodriguez; Henry P Moore; Mayela Rodriguez-Violante; Carlos Singer; Barbara C Tilley; Jing Huang; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2012-08-05       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population.

Authors:  Amanda Purcell; Jennifer Fleming; Sally Bennett; Bryan Burmeister; Terry Haines
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.