OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the minimum important difference (MID) for the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI), UDI-stress subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, and Urinary Impact Questionnaire (UIQ) of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated MID using anchor- and distribution-based approaches from a randomized trial for nonsurgical stress incontinence treatment. Anchors included a global impression of change, incontinence episodes from a urinary diary, and the Incontinence Severity Index. Effect size and standard error of measurement were the distribution methods used. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs ranged from -22.4 to -6.4 points for the UDI, -16.5 to -4.6 points for the UDI-stress, and -17.0 to -6.5 points for the UIQ. These data were supported by 2 distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: Reasonable estimates of MID are 11, 8, and 16 points for the UDI, UDI-stress subscale, and UIQ, respectively. Statistically significant improvements that meet these thresholds should be considered clinically important.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the minimum important difference (MID) for the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI), UDI-stress subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, and Urinary Impact Questionnaire (UIQ) of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated MID using anchor- and distribution-based approaches from a randomized trial for nonsurgical stress incontinence treatment. Anchors included a global impression of change, incontinence episodes from a urinary diary, and the Incontinence Severity Index. Effect size and standard error of measurement were the distribution methods used. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs ranged from -22.4 to -6.4 points for the UDI, -16.5 to -4.6 points for the UDI-stress, and -17.0 to -6.5 points for the UIQ. These data were supported by 2 distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: Reasonable estimates of MID are 11, 8, and 16 points for the UDI, UDI-stress subscale, and UIQ, respectively. Statistically significant improvements that meet these thresholds should be considered clinically important.
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: Alan J Wolfe; Evelyn Toh; Noriko Shibata; Ruichen Rong; Kimberly Kenton; MaryPat Fitzgerald; Elizabeth R Mueller; Paul Schreckenberger; Qunfeng Dong; David E Nelson; Linda Brubaker Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Holly E Richter; Kathryn L Burgio; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid E Nygaard; Wen Ye; Alison Weidner; Catherine S Bradley; Victoria L Handa; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Halina Zyczynski; Emily S Lukacz; Joseph Schaffer; Matthew Barber; Susan Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Megan O Schimpf; Dee E Fenner; Tovia M Smith; Julie Tucker; Mitchell B Berger Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Keisha Y Dyer; Yan Xu; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Alayne Markland; David Rahn; Toby C Chai; Ann Stoddard; Emily Lukacz Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Laura N Nguyen; Morgan Gruner; Kim A Killinger; Kenneth M Peters; Judith A Boura; Michelle Jankowski; Larry T Sirls Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Robert E Gutman; Catherine S Bradley; Wen Ye; Alayne D Markland; William E Whitehead; Mary P Fitzgerald Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: David Shveiky; Cheryl B Iglesia; Danielle D Antosh; Bela I Kudish; Joanna Peterson; Chun-Chih Huang; Chun-Chin Huang; James B Spies Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 2.894