Literature DB >> 20172689

Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values.

John Patrick Browne1, Jan H van der Meulen, James D Lewsey, Donna L Lamping, Nick Black.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To generate anchor-based values for the "minimally important difference" (MID) for a number of commonly used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to examine whether these values could be applied across the continuum of preoperative patient severity. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Six prospective cohort studies of patients undergoing elective surgery at hospitals in England and Wales. Patients completed questionnaires about their health and health-related quality of life before and after surgery. MID values were calculated using the mean change score for a reference group of patients who reported they were "a little better" after surgery minus the mean change score for those who said they were "about the same." Pearson's correlation was used to examine the association between baseline severity and change scores in the reference group. Baseline severity was expressed in two ways: first in terms of preoperative scores and second in terms of the average of pre- and postoperative scores (Oldham's method).
RESULTS: Of the 10 PRO measures examined, eight demonstrated a moderate or high positive association between preoperative scores and MID values. Only two measures demonstrated such an association when Oldham's measure of baseline severity was used.
CONCLUSION: In general, there is little association between baseline severity and MID values. However, a moderate association persists for some measures, and it is recommended that researchers continue to test for this relationship when generating anchor-based MID values from change scores. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20172689     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  19 in total

1.  Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients.

Authors:  David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  The Return of Rate Dependence.

Authors:  Amanda J Quisenberry; Sarah E Snider; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  Behav Anal (Wash D C)       Date:  2016-11

3.  Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Authors:  Jos Hendrikx; Jaap Fransen; Wietske Kievit; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  In prospective study using Specific Quality of Life & Outcomes Response-Venous (SQOR-V) questionnaire the recall bias had the same magnitude as the minimally important difference.

Authors:  Fedor Lurie; Robert L Kistner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Working Memory Training Improves Alcohol Users' Episodic Future Thinking: A Rate-Dependent Analysis.

Authors:  Sarah E Snider; Harshawardhan U Deshpande; Jonathan M Lisinski; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Stephen M LaConte; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging       Date:  2017-11-21

6.  What Are the Minimal and Substantial Improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR Versions After Total Joint Replacement?

Authors:  Stephen Lyman; Yuo-Yu Lee; Alexander S McLawhorn; Wasif Islam; Catherine H MacLean
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 8.  Order in the absence of an effect: Identifying rate-dependent relationships.

Authors:  Sarah E Snider; Amanda J Quisenberry; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 9.  Does impulsivity change rate dependently following stimulant administration? A translational selective review and re-analysis.

Authors:  W K Bickel; A J Quisenberry; S E Snider
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.530

10.  Clinicians' and patients' views of metrics of change derived from patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for comparing providers' performance of surgery.

Authors:  Zoe Hildon; Jenny Neuburger; Dominique Allwood; Jan van der Meulen; Nick Black
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.