OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for a fatigue visual analog scale (VAS) using patient-reported anchors (fatigue, pain, and overall health). METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n = 307) had 2 clinic visits at a median of 5.9 months apart. They completed a fatigue VAS (0-10 scale) and the retrospective anchor items, "How would you describe your overall fatigue/pain/overall health since the last visit?" with response options: Much worsened, Somewhat worsened, Same, Somewhat better, or Much better. The fatigue anchor was used for primary analysis and the pain/overall health anchors for sensitivity analyses. The minimally changed group was defined by those reporting they were somewhat better or somewhat worsened. RESULTS: The mean [standard deviation (SD)] age was 59.4 (13.2) years, disease duration was 14.1 (11.5) years, and 83% of patients were women. The baseline mean (SD) Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was 0.84 (0.75). The baseline fatigue VAS score was 4.2 (2.9) and at followup was 4.3 (2.8) [mean change of -0.07 (2.5); p = not significant]. The fatigue change score (0-10 scale) for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened for the fatigue anchor averaged -1.12 and 1.26, respectively. Using the pain anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.87 and 1.13; and using the global anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.82 and 1.17, respectively. Effect size estimates using 3 anchors were small for the Somewhat better (range 0.27-0.39) and Somewhat worsened (0.40-0.44) groups, but larger than for the no-change group (0.03-0.08). CONCLUSION: The MID for fatigue VAS is between -0.82 for -1.12 for improvement and is 1.13 to 1.26 for worsening on a 0-10 scale in a large RA clinical practice, and is similar to that seen in RA clinical trials. This information can aid in interpreting fatigue VAS in day-to-day care in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for a fatigue visual analog scale (VAS) using patient-reported anchors (fatigue, pain, and overall health). METHODS:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n = 307) had 2 clinic visits at a median of 5.9 months apart. They completed a fatigue VAS (0-10 scale) and the retrospective anchor items, "How would you describe your overall fatigue/pain/overall health since the last visit?" with response options: Much worsened, Somewhat worsened, Same, Somewhat better, or Much better. The fatigue anchor was used for primary analysis and the pain/overall health anchors for sensitivity analyses. The minimally changed group was defined by those reporting they were somewhat better or somewhat worsened. RESULTS: The mean [standard deviation (SD)] age was 59.4 (13.2) years, disease duration was 14.1 (11.5) years, and 83% of patients were women. The baseline mean (SD) Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was 0.84 (0.75). The baseline fatigue VAS score was 4.2 (2.9) and at followup was 4.3 (2.8) [mean change of -0.07 (2.5); p = not significant]. The fatigue change score (0-10 scale) for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened for the fatigue anchor averaged -1.12 and 1.26, respectively. Using the pain anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.87 and 1.13; and using the global anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.82 and 1.17, respectively. Effect size estimates using 3 anchors were small for the Somewhat better (range 0.27-0.39) and Somewhat worsened (0.40-0.44) groups, but larger than for the no-change group (0.03-0.08). CONCLUSION: The MID for fatigue VAS is between -0.82 for -1.12 for improvement and is 1.13 to 1.26 for worsening on a 0-10 scale in a large RA clinical practice, and is similar to that seen in RA clinical trials. This information can aid in interpreting fatigue VAS in day-to-day care in clinical practice.
Authors: F C Arnett; S M Edworthy; D A Bloch; D J McShane; J F Fries; N S Cooper; L A Healey; S R Kaplan; M H Liang; H S Luthra Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1988-03
Authors: Raymond S Douglas; Angelo Tsirbas; Mark Gordon; Diana Lee; Nicole Khadavi; Helene Chokron Garneau; Robert A Goldberg; Kenneth Cahill; Peter J Dolman; Victor Elner; Steve Feldon; Mark Lucarelli; Jimmy Uddin; Michael Kazim; Terry J Smith; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09
Authors: Hyein Kim; Jing Cui; Michelle Frits; Christine Iannaccone; Jonathan Coblyn; Nancy A Shadick; Michael E Weinblatt; Yvonne C Lee Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Paul Maranian; James R Seibold; Ann Impens; Maureen D Mayes; Philip J Clements; Terri Getzug; Ron D Hays Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Guy H Montgomery; Daniel David; Maria Kangas; Sheryl Green; Madalina Sucala; Dana H Bovbjerg; Michael N Hallquist; Julie B Schnur Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Andrew J Sarkin; Puja P Khanna; Marian M Shieh; Arthur F Kavanaugh; Robert A Terkeltaub; Susan J Lee; Jasvinder A Singh; Jan D Hirsch Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Henrietta O Fawole; Jody L Riskowski; Andrea Dell'Isola; Martijn P Steultjens; Michael C Nevitt; James C Torner; Cora E Lewis; David T Felson; Sebastien F M Chastin Journal: Int J Rheum Dis Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Chi-Hong Tseng; Daniel E Furst; Philip J Clements; Robert Elashoff; Michael Roth; David Elashoff; Donald P Tashkin Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Marian Kaldas; Puja P Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Philip J Clements; Weng Kee Wong; James R Seibold; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 7.580