BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is debate about how best to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We pooled data to measure the psychometric properties of IBS end points, including binary responses (eg, "adequate relief") and 50% improvement in symptom severity. METHODS: We pooled data from 12 IBS drug trials involving 10,066 participants. We tested the properties of binary response and 50% improvement end points, including the impact of baseline severity on performance, and measured construct validity using clinical anchors. RESULTS: There were 9044 evaluable subjects (age, 44 years; 85% female; 58% IBS constipation-prominent [IBS-C]; 31% IBS diarrhea-prominent [IBS-D]). Using the binary end point, the proportion responding in the mild, moderate, and severe groups was 42%, 40%, and 38%, respectively (P = .0008). There was no effect of baseline severity on binary response (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.0; P = .07). The proportions reaching 50% improvement in pain were 45%, 41%, and 41%, respectively; there was a small, yet significant, impact of baseline severity (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05; P < .0001) that did not meet clinical relevance criteria. Both end points revealed strong construct validity and detected "minimally clinically important differences" in symptoms. Both provided better discriminant spread in IBS-D than IBS-C. CONCLUSIONS: Both the traditional binary and 50% improvement end points are equivalent in their psychometric properties. Neither is impacted by baseline severity, and both demonstrate excellent construct validity. They are optimized for the IBS-D population but also appear valid in IBS-C.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is debate about how best to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We pooled data to measure the psychometric properties of IBS end points, including binary responses (eg, "adequate relief") and 50% improvement in symptom severity. METHODS: We pooled data from 12 IBS drug trials involving 10,066 participants. We tested the properties of binary response and 50% improvement end points, including the impact of baseline severity on performance, and measured construct validity using clinical anchors. RESULTS: There were 9044 evaluable subjects (age, 44 years; 85% female; 58% IBS constipation-prominent [IBS-C]; 31% IBS diarrhea-prominent [IBS-D]). Using the binary end point, the proportion responding in the mild, moderate, and severe groups was 42%, 40%, and 38%, respectively (P = .0008). There was no effect of baseline severity on binary response (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.0; P = .07). The proportions reaching 50% improvement in pain were 45%, 41%, and 41%, respectively; there was a small, yet significant, impact of baseline severity (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05; P < .0001) that did not meet clinical relevance criteria. Both end points revealed strong construct validity and detected "minimally clinically important differences" in symptoms. Both provided better discriminant spread in IBS-D than IBS-C. CONCLUSIONS: Both the traditional binary and 50% improvement end points are equivalent in their psychometric properties. Neither is impacted by baseline severity, and both demonstrate excellent construct validity. They are optimized for the IBS-D population but also appear valid in IBS-C.
Authors: William E Whitehead; Olafur S Palsson; Rona L Levy; Andrew D Feld; Michael VonKorff; Marsha Turner Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: E Jan Irvine; William E Whitehead; William D Chey; Kei Matsueda; Michael Shaw; Nicholas J Talley; Sander J O Veldhuyzen van Zanten Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S M Leventer; K Raudibaugh; C L Frissora; N Kassem; J C Keogh; J Phillips; A W Mangel Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-10-31 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Allen W Mangel; Sheri E Fehnel; Douglas A Drossman; Emeran A Mayer; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-04-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas Drossman; Carolyn B Morris; Yuming Hu; Brenda B Toner; Nicholas Diamant; William E Whitehead; Christine B Dalton; Jane Leserman; Donald L Patrick; Shrikant I Bangdiwala Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michelle G Craske; Kate B Wolitzky-Taylor; Jennifer Labus; Stephen Wu; Michael Frese; Emeran A Mayer; Bruce D Naliboff Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2011-04-19
Authors: D I Czyzewski; M M Lane; E M Weidler; A E Williams; P R Swank; R J Shulman Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Christopher V Almario; Benjamin D Noah; Alma Jusufagic; Daniel Lew; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Anthony J Lembo; Bernard J Lavins; James E MacDougall; Robyn T Carson; Valerie Sl Williams; Lauren M Nelson; Steven J Shiff; Mark G Currie; Caroline B Kurtz; Jeffrey M Johnston Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.623