OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of seven measures of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study design based on interindividual comparisons was used. Six to eight subjects participated in a single meeting and completed seven fatigue questionnaires (nine sessions were organized and 61 subjects participated). After completion of the questionnaires, the subjects had five one-on-one 10-minute conversations with different people in the group to discuss their fatigue. After each conversation, each patient compared their fatigue to their conversational partners on a global rating. Ratings were compared to the scores of the fatigue measures to estimate the MCID. Both nonparametric and linear regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Nonparametric estimates for the MCID relative to "little more fatigue" tended to be smaller than those for "little less fatigue." The global MCIDs estimated by linear regression were: Fatigue Severity Scale, 20.2; Vitality scale of the MOS-SF36, 14.8; Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, 18.7; Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, 16.6; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, 15.9; Chalder Fatigue Scale, 9.9; 10-point numerical Rating Scale, 19.7, for normalized scores (0-100). The standardized MCIDs for the seven measures were roughly similar (0.67-0.76). CONCLUSION: These estimates of MCID will help to interpret changes observed in a fatigue score and will be critical in estimating sample size requirements.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of seven measures of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study design based on interindividual comparisons was used. Six to eight subjects participated in a single meeting and completed seven fatigue questionnaires (nine sessions were organized and 61 subjects participated). After completion of the questionnaires, the subjects had five one-on-one 10-minute conversations with different people in the group to discuss their fatigue. After each conversation, each patient compared their fatigue to their conversational partners on a global rating. Ratings were compared to the scores of the fatigue measures to estimate the MCID. Both nonparametric and linear regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Nonparametric estimates for the MCID relative to "little more fatigue" tended to be smaller than those for "little less fatigue." The global MCIDs estimated by linear regression were: Fatigue Severity Scale, 20.2; Vitality scale of the MOS-SF36, 14.8; Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, 18.7; Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, 16.6; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, 15.9; Chalder Fatigue Scale, 9.9; 10-point numerical Rating Scale, 19.7, for normalized scores (0-100). The standardized MCIDs for the seven measures were roughly similar (0.67-0.76). CONCLUSION: These estimates of MCID will help to interpret changes observed in a fatigue score and will be critical in estimating sample size requirements.
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Janet Rodríguez-Torres; Laura López-López; Irene Cabrera-Martos; Gerald Valenza-Demet; Lawrence P Cahalin; Marie Carmen Valenza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael Lukasiewicz; Stephanie Gerard; Adeline Besnard; Bruno Falissard; Elena Perrin; Helene Sapin; Mauricio Tohen; Catherine Reed; Jean-Michel Azorin Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Amanda Purcell; Jennifer Fleming; Sally Bennett; Bryan Burmeister; Terry Haines Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lynn H Gerber; Nicole Stout; Charles McGarvey; Peter Soballe; Ching-yi Shieh; Guoqing Diao; Barbara A Springer; Lucinda A Pfalzer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-09-12 Impact factor: 3.603