Literature DB >> 19430834

The minimal clinically important difference in the Gastrointestinal Quality-of-Life Index after cholecystectomy.

Hon-Yi Shi1, King-Teh Lee, Hao-Hsien Lee, Yih-Huei Uen, Hsueh-Li Na, Fang-Tse Chao, Chong-Chi Chiu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) is unknown, which limits its application and interpretation. This study aimed to estimate MCIDs for the GIQLI scores of patients after they had undergone cholecystectomy.
METHODS: This study had 267 participants. All the participants completed the GIQLI and four anchor items, namely, "How would you describe your overall symptoms, emotions, physical functions, and social functions since your last visit?" The response options were "much worse," "somewhat worse," "same," "somewhat better" and "much better." The MCID was defined according to those who responded with "somewhat better."
RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 57.81 ± 14.93 years, and 37.08% of the patients were women. The MCID group included 67, 78, 44, and 22 patients with MCIDs of 6.42, 6.86, 7.64 and 6.46 points respectively for scores on the symptoms, emotions, physical functions, and social functions subscales, respectively. The effect sizes of four anchors in the "somewhat better" group (0.38-0.49) exceeded those of the same group (0.25-0.38).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that after patients had undergone cholecystectomy, the clinically significant mean changes in their scores on the GIQLI subscales for symptoms, emotions, physical functions, and social function were respectively 6.42, 6.86, 7.64, and 6.46 points. After patients have undergone cholecystectomy, the MCIDs for the GIQLI subscales can play an important role in interpretation of the scores, application of them in clinical practice, and verification of treatment effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19430834     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0475-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  16 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; David Cella; Ron D Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument.

Authors:  Kathleen J Yost; Mark V Sorensen; Elizabeth A Hahn; G Alastair Glendenning; Ari Gnanasakthy; David Cella
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 6.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 7.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index in patients with gastric tumor.

Authors:  Suk Ming Yeung; Ann T Y Shiu; Colin R Martin; Kent-Man Chu
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Assessing patient-reported outcomes of cholecystectomy in short-stay surgery.

Authors:  Eva Maria Bitzer; Christoph Lorenz; Stefan Nickel; Hans Dörning; Alf Trojan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.

Authors:  L E Kazis; J J Anderson; R F Meenan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  4 in total

1.  Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective piecewise linear regression analysis.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; Hao-Hsien Lee; Meng-Han Tsai; Chong-Chi Chiu; Yih-Huei Uen; King-Teh Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Response shift effect on gastrointestinal quality of life index after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; King-Teh Lee; Hao-Hsien Lee; Yih-Huei Uen; Chong-Chi Chiu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-10-10       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Health-related quality of life outcomes after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Amedeo Carraro; Dania El Mazloum; Florian Bihl
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  The minimally important difference of the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index for symptomatic gallstone surgery.

Authors:  Jason M Sutherland; Carmela Melina Albanese; Trafford Crump; Guiping Liu; Ahmer Karimuddin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.