OBJECTIVE: The pursuit of interpretability of longitudinal measures of patient outcome has led to several methods for defining minimal amounts of change or final states that are important. Little is known about the best method. The purpose of this study was to directly compare methods using diagnostic utility to evaluate their usefulness. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of longitudinal cohort data of persons attending physiotherapy for shoulder pain. Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand outcome fielded at baseline and 3 months. Published methods were used to define positive response in scores: minimal change, final state, and combined change and final state. Proportions described as improved were compared (Kappa) and diagnostic testing techniques used to evaluate the strengths of each. RESULTS: Only moderate agreement was found between methods (Kappa=0.47). Minimal clinically important differences were most sensitive but not specific. Final states were less sensitive, more specific, and most accurate. Combinations were slightly less specific. CONCLUSION: A new approach allowed us to evaluate the relative merits and risks of different approaches to interpreting longitudinal patient outcomes. Our study points to a combination of change greater than error and/or a final score within general population norms as being the most clinically sensible with strong diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: The pursuit of interpretability of longitudinal measures of patient outcome has led to several methods for defining minimal amounts of change or final states that are important. Little is known about the best method. The purpose of this study was to directly compare methods using diagnostic utility to evaluate their usefulness. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of longitudinal cohort data of persons attending physiotherapy for shoulder pain. Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand outcome fielded at baseline and 3 months. Published methods were used to define positive response in scores: minimal change, final state, and combined change and final state. Proportions described as improved were compared (Kappa) and diagnostic testing techniques used to evaluate the strengths of each. RESULTS: Only moderate agreement was found between methods (Kappa=0.47). Minimal clinically important differences were most sensitive but not specific. Final states were less sensitive, more specific, and most accurate. Combinations were slightly less specific. CONCLUSION: A new approach allowed us to evaluate the relative merits and risks of different approaches to interpreting longitudinal patient outcomes. Our study points to a combination of change greater than error and/or a final score within general population norms as being the most clinically sensible with strong diagnostic accuracy.
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
Authors: Man Hung; Charles L Saltzman; Richard Kendall; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Brandon Lawrence; Ryan Spiker; Darrel Brodke Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Eva Zwaan; Elena Cheung; Alexander IJsselmuiden; Carlo Holtzer; Ton Schreuders; Marcel Kofflard; Marco Alings; J Henk Coert Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Nikolas H Kazmers; Yuqing Qiu; Minkyoung Yoo; Andrew R Stephens; Andrew R Tyser; Yue Zhang Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.230